Preamble

Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND RECEIPTS BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.0 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill because of the Clause which I consider most objectionable. Clause 3 is one of the most damnable, mean, contemptible and indefensible Clauses that have even been put in a Bill in the House of Commons. When I say this, I say it deliberately. It is a bastard child of Panic by Cowardice, and the godmother is Ignorance.
I am sorry to say these harsh words, but I think the House is not fully seized of the importance of Clause 3 as it affects both schoolchildren and the industry which will be severely hit as a result of this panic Measure. I hope that after reflection—I do not ask at this stage for the Government to drop the Bill—when Clause 3 goes to another place the Government will have second thoughts and that the Bill will come back minus Clause 3. If that is so, I believe a sigh of relief will go up from hon. Members on this side of the House and also, I think, from the more enlightened hon. Members on the other side.
I want to deal first of all with the educational impact of Clause 3. If the Bill is passed into law it will mean considerable reduction in expenditure on school milk. The total estimated saving is £ 5 million. I think the proposal was first brought forward not as an educational measure, not as a nutritional measure, but as a panic economy measure. I feel that the more time we have to examine and consider it and its implications, the more hon. Members should call for its withdrawal.
Other hon. Members will be interested in how it affects their own area, but the

£ 5 million sum to be saved is for the United Kingdom as a whole, and of this sum approximately £ 700,000 has to be contributed by Scotland. I will tell the House what it means for my constituency. In Ayrshire we shall have to spend £ 24,000 less; this is our share of the economy measure. What justification is there for taking £ 24,000 away from the expenditure on school milk in the County of Ayrshire? I have been associated with the education committee of Ayrshire for very many years; I was, I believe, one of its most active members. I was associated with the late hon. Member for Kilmarnock, Mrs. Clarice McNab Shaw, in the pioneering efforts to get school milk established in our area, and over the years it has been a recognised and good thing, good for the pupils and good, incidentally, for the farmers and milk producing industry of my constituency. So, if the Bill is given a Third Reading, £ 24,000 will be our contribution to the Government's, I believe, completely mistaken policy of economy in this field.
I still take an interest in education in my area and made inquiries last weekend about exactly what this economy measure means. I find that in the town of Cumnoch where I live—it is a typical mining town—705 children will be deprived of their milk if the Bill goes on the Statute Book. I strongly object to that. After having worked and strived to improve the physique of the children of my area, I now find that a very important part of what is done will be cut away by this economy measure for which I can find no justification. It is not only the 705 children in secondary school; we have a Catholic school where 125 children will lose their milk. I do not know what I am to say to parents or even intelligent children when the milk stops and I am asked what the reason is.
The Government say "Economy. We must save money because we are in a financial crisis." Of course we are in a financial crisis. But how does this mean economy help us in our financial crisis? Nobody has explained it. All that we are told by the Minister was that it was necessary to have certain economies. Why this particular economy?
Also, how will it work out? The children will get less milk, and so the farmers will not be able to supply the


usual quantity of milk. What are the economics of this? The dairyman will no longer supply such a quantity of milk to the schools, and the result will inevitably be that he will have to alter his system of distribution. The possibility that the dairy producer will not be able to sell the milk to the schools will sooner or later result in the overhead costs going up, and so the cost of milk for the whole community will go up. I can see no justification for this.
We have had some arguments about nutrition. I do not blame the Secretary of State for Education and Science for this argument. It was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who introduced the argument that there was some nutritional reason for the proposal. I do not believe that for one moment. I believe that the argument about nutrition was brought in at the last moment to justify something for which the case was very flimsy.
I believe that the case for saying that when children reach the secondary school stage they no longer need milk is very doubtful. What is the evidence for it? The only evidence that has been produced so far was a letter, the contents of which we did not have read out by the Secretary of State in the Committee stage. He was advised by some permanent official or other that a cut back in milk supplies might affect children in the primary school but would not affect children in the secondary school. That is a new and novel argument.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Our right hon. Friend did not go as far as that. He did not say that the highly anonymous evidence supplied to him argued that children in secondary schools would not be disadvantaged by withdrawal of the milk. What he said was that there was no evidence to conclude one way or the other whether they would be.

Mr. Hughes: If there is no evidence one way or another, how am I to defend the proposition to an intelligent young pupil from the secondary school who says "Sir, why have you cut off our milk?" He will say, "What evidence is there?" I shall have to say that the Minister has come to this conclusion without having evidence one way or another. That position is indefensible, and that is why I

ask the Government to withdraw the Clause.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The "Bill".

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to keep to the terms of the Third Reading Question. I am sorry for a slip of the tongue.
The Government's proposal is likely to result in misplaced economies throughout Scotland. In Lanarkshire £ 81,000 is to be cut off the secondary school milk bill. In Glasgow £ 150,000 is to be saved in this way. Anybody who knows Glasgow as I know Glasgow, and as the ex-Lord Provost of Glasgow knows it realises, that to cut down the supply of milk to the schools is bound to have a detrimental effect on the physique of the population. When I went to Glasgow in 1924 the children suffered very badly from rickets. There was T.B. There were all the diseases that come from malnutrition. As a result of the progressive change in outlook of Governments and education authorities, milk was introduced more and more into the schools. When one sees the generation in Glasgow now, one does not see rickety malformed young people. One finds a healthier generation, and one of the contributory causes of this has undoubtedly been the supply of milk in the schools. But now the Government say "On the basis of something for which there is no evidence one way or another, we will cut £ 150,000 off the secondary school milk provision of Glasgow." No wonder the ex-Lord Provost of Glasgow, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), made a powerful and unanswerable speech in the Committee stage. Edinburgh is to have £ 53,000 knocked off the bill.
So I say that I am doing my duty as an ex-teacher, as an ex-educational administrator, in protesting in the strongest possible terms against this reactionary proposal. We are to be asked in Scotland—slummy Scotland—Scotland which needs nutrition, Scotland which is associated with the name of Lord Boyd-Orr, the eminent nutrition expert—to sacrifice £ 700,000 in the expenditure on school milk.
To turn to another point of view. I refer to the effect on the agricultural community. I represent probably the largest milk producing constituency in


the country, and I have been associated with the development of the milk industry in the County of Ayrshire, too. The proposal will deal—I will not say a crippling blow—a considerable blow at the farming community in the county that I represent. Of course, it will inflict a far greater blow upon the agricultural communities in England. Their market for milk will be lost to the extent of £ 4,300,000, and many of these dairy farmers have not recovered from the crippling effect of the foot-and-mouth disaster. What a help it is to the dairy farmer thinking of restocking his herd to know that his market for liquid milk is going down and this as a result of an economy measure!
I am amazed at the attitude of hon. Members opposite who usually claim to speak for the farming community. I should have thought that at the time of the Price Review there would be protests from the agricultural community opposite. I was told by one of the best informed milk producers in Scotland that older farmers were semi-officially told by some politicians that they would not suffer as a result of reduction in school milk supplies because it would be taken into account in the Price Review. That was not the impression that the Minister gave me last night. I do not believe that the Minister has ever thought of the implications of this. I think that the farmers in Scotland will be angry when they find that it is not to be considered in the Price Review.
So this is a very definite blow to the farmer who produces the milk and to the dairyman who distributes it. I am astonished that I do not get support from the hon. Gentlemen who normally pretend to speak for the agricultural constituencies. Where has the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who waxes very eloquent on milk in other respects, been on this occasion? Where have such hon. Members been while I have been putting the case for the farmer? They have been nowhere. The only support that I have had from the Opposition benches was from the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), who is a cuckoo in the nest and rather an embarrassment, and he is not present to embarrass me this morning. But when the farmers realise that hon. Members opposite have gone out of action and slept in and have had to be replaced by the so-called rebels

who are at present even denied entrance to the Parliamentary Labour Party—

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Is my hon. Friend not rather harsh on the Opposition? They are seeing their policy which they put forward at the last General Election being implemented. Why should they talk?

Mr. Hughes: I should be going wide of the Third Reading if I developed that point. I make this point only because I believe that it should be re-examined from the point of view of the agricultural producer. I should have thought that the milk industry was so important that it should be encouraged. We are told that in our economic situation we have to do with less foreign food. But the milk industry is not being developed and encouraged by Clause 3. Of course, it may be said, "Oh, but the farmers will sell their liquid milk and it will go into butter and cheese". But what price do they get for it? Therefore, I. say that the Bill is a badly-thought-out one and that even at this stage the reactionary Clause 3 should be withdrawn.
I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, because I would like to believe that both he and the Secretary of State for Scotland have at different stages of this controversy fought for the schoolchildren. I do not want to be harsh on them, but I do say that a Secretary of State for Education should at least learn to do his homework. Children in Scotland and in England used to be beaten if they did not do their homework, but here we have a Secretary of State for Education and a Secretary of State for Scotland who simply have not done their homework on this proposal, and so the Clause has been attacked in the Committee stage by every hon. Member who has spoken. Every hon. Member last night who criticised what is in this Bill took up a critical, hostile attitude towards this proposal, and I believe that every intelligent member of the Labour Party is thoroughly ashamed and disgusted with it.
I ask the Government to have second thoughts when the Bill goes to another place. They have had second thoughts about Stansted. They have had to have second thoughts about a good many things. I appeal to the Government to


remember that the Bill has this Clause which has not had sufficient consideration and has been shot to bits during the Committee stage, and I ask for its withdrawal.

10.23 a.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I want to oppose the Bill, and in doing so I should like to draw the attention of the House to the speech of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the Bill was introduced. He said:
The main purpose of the Bill was to enable savings in public expenditure to be made. It achieves this partly by reducing certain items of expenditure and partly by increasing certain receipts; but the policy changes involved are substantial and need careful consideration.
He went on:
I would refer to the statement on public expenditure which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on 16th January. He laid the greatest stress on the need to achieve a progressive and massive shift of resources from home consumption, public and private, to the requirement of export, import replacement and productive investment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th Feb. 1968; Vol. 759, c. 245.]
The operative words in that statement, I think, are "massive shift of resources".
Let us look for a few moments at whether the Bill achieves anything like a massive shift of resources. We have £ 5 million being saved on the basis of, in the rather colourful words of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), "taking the milk out of the bottles of the secondary school children." Is this in any way a massive shift of resources towards the export drive? I ask the House to think of that for a few moments and consider whether this is really a sensible and serious argument that we are having presented to us on the Bill.
The other "massive shift of resources" is in regard to the increased National Insurance and National Health contributions. We have had two contradictory statements on this point. We were told, for example, by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, rather like the Chief Secretary, that the whole basis of the Bill—he complained yesterday that sufficient attention had not been paid to this was the question of the effects of devaluation and that this was to help make devaluation work. But the Minister for Social Security said it had nothing

to do with devaluation; it was because there was a deficit, and we were having extra contributions because there was a £ 75 million deficit.
I am just a simple soul, and I should like to know why it is. Is it to help the "massive shift of resources" or is it to meet the deficit? We ought to know the answers to these questions. Quite honestly, the truth is that this is a pretty miserable Bill which I believe was conceived in haste and is of extremely doubtful parentage indeed. If we analyse the Bill a little further we find that it is the sort of Bill that one would expect to have emanated from the hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in Government. One would never have expected it to come from the present Government benches.
I particularly dislike and oppose three provisions in the Bill: first, the increased contributions to the National Insurance scheme; secondly, the increased contributions to the National Health scheme; and, thirdly, the abolition of school milk in secondary schools.
Let me just say a word about the abolition of school milk in secondary schools. I come from Liverpool. We have a great number of extremely fine and funny comedians from Liverpool. It is often said that one has to be a comedian to live in Liverpool. But there is a reason for this. People overcome their adversity by making jokes about it. One of our famous comedians is Ken Dodd, who talks about "Doddy's Diddymen", and I will tell the House why. Before the war the kids in Liverpool grew up as "Diddymen." A "Diddyman" is somebody small. They were small because they were under-nourished. They did not get either sufficient food or sufficient milk. The children in Liverpool today are no longer "Diddymen", and to that extent Ken Dodd is getting a little out of date.
My young brother-in-law who has just completed his education at London University is a very different sort of lad from the earlier ones in the family. He is a big, strapping lad. Why? He was helped along the road by free milk in both primary and secondary school. But we are taking that away. That is what the Bill means; a massive shift of resources—£ 5 million. That is what it is all about. Obviously, we cannot possibly be expected


to accept this without a protest and without opposing it as hard as we possibly can.
I honestly believe that some members of the Government Front Bench are living in a somewhat different world from other hon. Members. For example, the Minister of Social Security said that the provisions of the Bill were by no means as unpleasant as some of my hon. Friends think they are. I think the hon. Lady is living in an ivory tower. Members of the Government have ceased to understand what is unpleasant and who are being hit by the Bill.
Despite the pathetic defence of the Bill put up yesterday by both my hon. Friends the Minister of Social Security and the Under-Secretary of State, from the Front Bench, I find it a very unpleasant Bill indeed, and so do most of my hon. Friends. That is also true of many of my hon. Friends who up to now have voted for it. The Government Front Bench should understand that there is no enthusiasm for it. It is high time that they took note of the deep feelings which have been expressed in relation to these measures, although they have not always been expressed by a vote. I am not criticising my hon. Friends for not voting, and I hope that they will not criticise me for voting, because we all feel very deeply indeed about this Bill. I hope that, even at this late stage, my hon. Friend will consider dropping it, or at least giving us an assurance, even now, that the offending measures in this Bill to which we object will be eliminated.
I could have said much more about this Bill. The hon. Lady yesterday, for example, admitted that the increased contributions represent a regressive poll tax, about which, she said, she has complained throughout the years. If that is so, why introduce this regressive poll tax? If it is admitted that it is a continuation of a system which we, as a party, over the years have consistently opposed, why bring it to the House today? The true solution is to find money in other directions.
One further point concerns the effect which the Bill will have on the lower income groups. We were given some figures yesterday that the average wage of the workers in industry had gone up from £ 20 6s. 1d. to over £ 21.

Mr. James Dempsey: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would develop that? Where has this average wage increased? How is the average wage arrived at? Does this average wage apply to Scotland?

Mr. Heffer: I was about to come to the point which my hon. Friend made: this £ 21 obviously takes into consideration overtime earnings, a whole group of piecework, and all sorts of extra payments. It also lumps together some very highly paid workers with those who are extremely low paid workers. I want to give a few figures.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) introduced a very important point. If one goes to Scotland and says that the average wage is £ 20 in any of the areas, they will immediately reply that that applies only to the higher paid workers. In Scotland wages have always been lower than in England.

Mr. Heffer: We can all, perhaps, claim for our various parts of the country that the workers' wages are low. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. One need only go to the Merseyside to find very low-paid workers from time to time—[HON MEMBERS: "The majority."] The majority, as my hon. Friends rightly say.
I should like to give the official figures which I have culled out of statistical books in relation to the income of certain groups. What do I find? I find that the latest overall figures I have, for 1965, show that those earning between £ 500 and £ 600 a year were 1,901,000. Those between £ 600 and £ 700 per year were 1,829,000, and those between £ 700 to £ 800 a year were 1,374,000, making a total of 5,104.000, all earning less than £ 16 a week. But I have not included the figures of those earning less than £ 10 a week. If one added all these, too, one would find that it was much more than five million. There are seven to eight million earning less than £ 16 a week.
That puts a somewhat different complexion on the figure of £ 21 as average earnings. This is precisely the section of the community who will be hit most by the Bill. It is for that reason that I and many hon. Members on this side of the House have opposed this Bill as strongly as we could right throughout.
I conclude by once again making a plea to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I suppose that, in view of the way in which Parliament grinds on, there is little chance of their dropping the Bill at this stage. I suppose that we have to go through this traumatic experience of having the Bill foisted on the people of this country. But I appeal to my hon. Friends to make its duration as short as they possibly can. There is no reason why we should not rush through legislation which can change the provisions of this Bill. Last night my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security said that this was the Bill in the form in which we had to accept it. She said that it would be impossible to change it at this stage. However, today in this House we are to discuss a Bill which no one knew about until last Friday. It is a bit of rushed legislation. I suggest that we can also rush some legislation through to change the provisions of this Bill, for example, to take out the Clauses which put the full burden of National Insurance and health contributions on to the shoulders of the workers and introduce Clauses which would transfer it on to the shoulders of the employers. That is the sort of legislation that I should like to see rushed through the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot amend the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Heffer: I am not trying to amend the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I am expressing the hope that Ministers will bring in a new Bill at the earliest possible moment to replace that which I am opposing and which hon. Friends have opposed right throughout. I conclude on that note, but it is a thought which I leave with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

10.38 a.m

Mr. Michael Alison: I want to follow up one or two of the points which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made, I thought, very cogently. This is a peculiar Bill, and one reason that it is peculiar lies in its undoubted publicity and the way in which the Government have presented it in the context of the devaluation measures. The Secretary of State for Education was quite emphatic about that yesterday. Yet, as the hon. Member for Walton rightly said, one of its principal

Clauses, connected with the Actuary's Report, has absolutely nothing to do with the devaluation measures at all. One of its most important provisions, namely the capacity to increase fees, is not quantified at all in a Bill in which the financial figures involved are quite marginal in relation to Government expenditure as a whole. Thus, one of the most important Clauses is not quantified.
We then find that the school milk proposal is thrown into the middle of the Bill as by far and away the least important financial aspect when the sums are added up, and yet the whole of the Government's devaluation packet is alleged to turn on it. The only common thread running through the Bill is the involvement of the Treasury in all developments. It really is a Treasury Bill. The disparate package has been brought into the Bill simply because the Treasury is in some way involved in all of them, and I must say that it is quite unsatisfactory that we have not got the Chief Secretary to the Treasury here this morning.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): He will be here.

Mr. Alison: We are told that he will be here, but we have a lot of important questions—I certainly have—that we want to put to him about the financial aspects of this Bill. May we be quite certain that he will, in fact, be here to deal with them?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Mr. Gordon Walker indicated assent.

Mr. Alison: That is reassuring.
I want to concentrate what I have to say on this aspect of school milk because this is undoubtedly the factor which is causing the greatest concern and interest both in the House and outside it. The first question I want to put to the Secretary of State for Education and Science—and I think it is a cardinal point of the Bill—relates to this provision in Clause 3 about school milk, permissive or mandatory.
So far as I can see, reading the first few lines of Clause 3—and I hope that the Secretary of State will address himself, as I have no doubt the House will—to the words in Clause 3. We read that
Regulations made under section 49 of the Education Act 1944 as to the provision of


milk for pupils shall not impose on local education authorities the duty of providing milk …
That is to say, as from the passing of this Bill, local education authorities do not have to provide milk, but presumably they can provide milk if they so wish. But it is, I think, a reflection of some encouragement to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and in all parties, that all the fiery thunder which has been generated by these provisions can be effectively harnessed. I have no doubt that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and others will now turn their attention to the local education authorities of the constituencies they represent and urge them that they accept the lifting of the Government contribution towards the provision of school milk but that they are determined to urge these local education authorities to go on providing it. As far as I can see, it is entirely open to local education authorities so to do.
We certainly accept that local education authorities are not being compelled by this Bill to stop providing milk for secondary school children. If this is the case, if it is permissive and not mandatory, it makes the ludicrous nature of the Secretary of State for Education and Science the justification for this Bill. But it is the key linch pin of the devaluation package, the one element in it which is going to call for gnomes to take a new look at Britain and all the rest of it; it makes this absolutely and totally absurd. There can be no guarantee at all about the £ 5 million which is written into the Bill as the justification for ending the Government support for this. There can be absolutely no guarantee that the final figure is going to be realised. Local education authorities may very well take over the expenditure on school milk, entirely on their own initiative and authority. Let us be under no illusion that they are quite capable of doing it; they have got the finance to do it.
If we look at Cmnd. 3515—the estimate of forward expenditure by the Government—we find that the Prime Minister explicitly said that in the year 1969– 70, the last year of the package in which alleged cuts have been made in public expenditure, expenditure by local authorities in real terms will be allowed to rise by 3 per cent. Local education

authorities are at present spending something in the neighbourhood of £ 3,000 million a year. If they are allowed to increase their outlay by 3 per cent., at constant prices in 1969– 70—and this is really the period when the cut in school milk will come into operation—they have here an actual committed increase of expenditure of something like £ 90 million. If the Secretary of State does not think they can find scope within that to include the continuance of school milk, I shall be very surprised.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that there are already built-in increases locally—increased teachers and so on—and I think that if he talked to local education authorities at the moment he would not find that they were eager to take on new charges, though they are perfectly entitled to.

Mr. Alison: I suspect, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that the Secretary of State for Education and Science underestimates the impact that some of his hon. Friends behind him can have on local education authorities. I would not mind betting that at least half the local education authorities would not mind having a good look to see whether they could not continue to provide free milt in secondary schools, in which case the saving of £ 5 million is halved straight away.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I am following the hon. Gentleman very closely; I have a very deep interest in this subject. I wonder if he could tell the House whether he knows of any Conservative-controlled local education authority which is even in favour of free milk in secondary schools—never mind doing it themselves.

Mr. Alison: This is beside the point. It is not the point at all, with great respect. We are talking about projections for forward expenditure which will come into effect—either the cuts or the continuance—in September of this year and, in fact, relates, so far as the main charges imposed, in the financial year 1969/70. So really one cannot pre-empt this by asking whether Tory educational authorities will take it on or not. The only point I am making is that in principle the allegation that £ 5 million is automatically going to be saved by the


House passing this Bill is nonsense because the discretion under the Bill remains entirely with local education authorities and they may very well, in fact, decide to continue.

Mr. Heffer: Would the hon. Gentleman like to indicate to the House whether his hon. Friends on the Front Bench will urge any local authorities controlled by their party to continue with free school milk for secondary schools? Would he like to give us an assurance, because I am sure we would be delighted, especially in places like Liverpool with a Conservative controlled city council.

Mr. Alison: I really think the Hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is expecting a little too much of me to be able to speak for all my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but, with respect, I think again he is doing me an injustice. He is looking a gift horse in the mouth. I am showing him here that the principle of this Bill—and this is what we are debating—that it is automatic that £ 5 million is going to be saved—and this is the whole of the case of the Secretary of State of Education and Science—is a myth. It is an entirely permissive piece of legislation and it is entirely within the scope of local education authorities to go on providing this milk.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, because he is developing a most progressive line and I am quite sure that Conservative local authorities will be very pleased to follow it, but before he sits down will he tell us if the party opposite is in favour of cutting £ 5 million off school milk and injuring the agricultural industry?

Mr. Alison: We made our position quite clear on this whole question in the vote that we took on the reasoned Amendment that we tabled to the Public Expenditure Bill when it came before the house on 17th and 18th January. We voted on a reasoned Amendment which was quite clear; that we had no confidence in Her Majesty's Government whose mismanagement of the economy had led to the present situation, recognised that there is a need to curtail public expenditure, regrets that the statement—that is the Prime Minister's state

ment—is purely negative in character. We voted on that Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell) rose—

Mr. Alison: I give way every other minute. I must be allowed to develop this argument a bit.
I am sure that it is reasonable to expect an explanation, at any rate, from the Secretary of State as to why it is that the Government are so confident that this £ 5 million is going to be saved by this provision. There is no evidence for it at all.
We have had some gibes as to whether or not Tory local education authorities may or may not assist the Government in removing secondary school milk, but there can be no doubt at all that some of the constituencies represented by his hon. Friends who criticised this—this is surely the cardinal point at stake—are wondering whether we are effecting a genuine economy measure here, because if devaluation is the explanation for it this is an important question; we have to have a clear answer. If there is ample scope within this Bill for local education authorities to continue with the provision of school milk—let us assume those authorities who are broadly in sympathy with the line taken by the hon. Members for Poplar and Penistone—quite immediately we have a substantial hole shot in the whole of this provision for saving £ 5 million. We must have a clear explanation on this because otherwise the thing is really quite ludicrous.
I want to just say a further word on the Secretary of State's justification for this provision. He laid great stress—and here I must express considerable sympathy with the speech made by the hon. Member for Walton—on making a valid distinction, in justifying the provision of school milk, between the kind of retrenchment in Government expenditure which relates to goods and services, real resources, and that which relates to either transfer payments or subsidies. He agreed, I think, as far as I can make out, that the school milk provision fell into the latter category, that it was Government expenditure related to subsidies, or to transfer payments.
The Secretary of State really must follow his argument through. The suggestion that this is going to make a real contribution to the working of devaluation, because a payment for school milk is going to be transferred from the Exchequer, or from the local authorities, to the individual parents, thereby diminishing the spending power they will have upon other goods and services, and thereby helping the export drive, is quite undemonstrated. We do not know whether this will happen at all. The public involved in this may not in any way replace the money which the public authorities are spending on school milk from their own pockets. They may simply drop the school milk, as many hon. Members on the other side feel. This will have absolutely no contribution to make at all towards relieving the pressure on resources which might otherwise go for export.
The Government have shown a total lack of imagination over their handling of this matter. We suspect that the alleged savings are quite bogus, that there is no evidence that this amount will be saved, and I could tell the Secretary of State for Education and Science a very much more pertinent sector in which he could make an equivalent saving if he wanted to. This comes under the broad embrace of Clause 5, dealing with the charges for licences, the charges for commissions, fees and so on. Why have the Government not considered a broader look at the whole question of the charges for various licences?
My mind turns without any facetiousness, Mr. Speaker, but as a genuine argument, to the question of dog licences. This has had some publicity in the past—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on the Third Reading of the Bill. I do not see any mention of dog licences in the Bill.

Mr. Alison: You will see, Mr. Speaker, that Clause 5 does relate to various charges, and fees and so on which might be increased, and this is not unrelated to the money that the Government are trying to raise. I would just point out, with great respect to you, Sir, that the amount of money involved, for example, in increasing licences in some other fields—and there is probably the power within Clause 5 for this—is two or three times—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot argue that by increasing dog licences under Clause 5 we could get rid of Clause 3 which seems to be the point in his argument.

Mr. Alison: Mr. Speaker, I certainly bow to your Ruling. I just want to remind the Secretary of State that the £ 5 million involved here is by no means a definite saving. In any case, even if it was, the saving could more than constructively be made by charges in many other different directions than those relating to the charge upon children.
There are two special points that I hope the Minister will be able to deal with when he answers. The first is this: what is going to be the effect upon Government expenditure of the fact that as from 1967– 68 the Government support, which has hitherto been given for local authorities in respect of school milk, through the vote of his own Department, the Department of Education and Science, has, I understand, been included in the rate support grant, paid by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? This again is a matter of some substance. If, in fact, the contribution received by local authorities for the provision of school milk has, as from the current financial year, been buried in the morass of the rate support grant paid by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, then not only is it entirely open to local education authorities, as far as I can see, to opt into the continuance of the provision of school milk, and some may well so do, but since the support for school milk for local education authorities is now under the Vote of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in respect of the rate support grant, there will be absolutely no difficulty at all in any local education authority continuing to draw the additional money from the Exchequer which is needed for continuing secondary school milk simply by a modest increase in the rates, which would be compensated for by a modest proportionate increase in the grants from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Let us not forget that local authorities are at present spending enormous sums of money. The Education Department alone is laying out about £ 1,000 million a year. The normal 6 per cent. increase, the normal buoyance, that we find, for example, in the Supplementary Estimates


is important, for 6 per cent. of £ 1,000 million is about £ 120 million. That could well cover the extra £ 5 million cost which school milk involves. There is plenty of scope, as far as I can see, for the provision to continue without anybody knowing about it. The rate support grant from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government could well embrace the continuance of school milk by those local authorities which opt for it.
Would the Minister also say a word about a category of schools which has not so far been mentioned and is not mentioned in the Bill—the category known as the "middle school"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is not mentioned in the Bill, the hon. Member may not discuss it.

Mr. Alison: I imagine that it is mentioned in the Bill by implication. I refer to the middle schools which are neither secondary nor primary in the strict definition of the age range which they embrace. What will be their position? Will they continue to receive the grant? We want a specific answer on that. We want confirmation that this is a permissive and not a mandatory provision and, secondly, that it may be assumed that some local education authorities may opt for this and continue to get rate support grant provision for it from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

10.59 a.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: What has been characteristic most of the time of the debates on this Bill, through its various stages, has been the high quality of debate on the major Amendments. But, on those rare occasions when a Front Bench representative of the Conservative Party has intervened in the debate, the debate has immediately descended to the lowest levels of hypocrisy and humbug. We have had another example of that this morning. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) supports the provisions of the Bill; he supports the increase in the contributions from working people; he fully supports the withdrawal of free school milk, and his party support it. In order not to have to admit that, however, he makes a speech casting about among such subjects as dog licences and all manner of things

—anything so that he need not talk about the Bill. It was a despicable performance.
Not only are the hon. Gentleman and his party fully involved, but we have here a case of an open and blatant denial of parentage, which is regarded as the most dishonourable kind of conduct in other affairs. The Conservative party pioneered the withdrawal of free school milk. The Conservative Party have been campaigning against these welfare provisions for years. Yet their representative has the face and the effrontery to come to the House and, even from the Front Bench, to make the kind of speech to which we have just listened.
Throughout this debate there must be one point clear in our minds: anything that is said from the Conservative Front Bench is irrelevant to the debate, and the only true debate begins when hon. Members on this side of the House—with the honourable exception of some Members of the Liberal Party—take part in it. Then the debate is real and meaningful.
Before I leave the hon. Member for Barkston Ash may I say this: no hon. Member on this side of the House needs his hypocritical advice as to what he ought to advocate in his own constituency. The hon. Member will be fully occupied, and so will his colleagues, urging upon their Conservative-controlled education committees and local authorities throughout the country to get the free milk scheme adopted in those Conservative authorities. He will have his work cut out there, and he has no need to cast about for additional advice to give to hon. Members on this side of the House.
But the real purpose of this debate must be, of course, a general review of what is in the Bill, the policy behind it, the circumstances—this is appropriate, I submit, on Third Reading—and the context within which this Bill must be placed. I do not complain of the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because he has been here all morning and nobody can be here all the time, but it is rather a pity becase I was going to address most of my remarks to him.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am sure my hon. Friend will understand the working of Government and appreciates that my right hon. Friend's absence, for which he has


asked me to apologise to the House, is due to the fact that at 11 o'clock there is a Cabinet meeting which he must attend.

Mr. Mendelson: I was quite sure that there was a very good constitutional reason for the absence of my right hon. Friend, but I appreciate the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary.
Addressing myself to the Department and to all the Ministers responsible for the Bill, I want to return to the rather extraordinary passage in the speech last night of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he was winding up one of the debates in Committee. When he was talking about the advice which he had received and that formed the basis of the decision to withdraw free school milk from secondary school pupils, he was pressed on this matter by several hon. Members. I quote his reply in paraphrase because the HANSARD report of that part of the debate has, for good reasons, not yet been printed; there has not been time.
Therefore, I am not in a position to quote verbatim, but the Secretary of State argued that he had not only relied on the rather uncertain evidence emanating from medical circles, because, he said, there is no evidence that it will make no difference if we withdraw free school milk. He did not try to make a case at any time that there was evidence saying that it would not matter. He said the matter was left open. That is all he said.
He then went on, being pressed by hon. Members, to say that we did not only have that advice, but we had further advice. The only further advice which he quoted was a letter from a permanent official in his Department. I was not quite clear whether it was a letter from one permanent official to another permanent official, or whether he said it was a letter from a permanent official to himself. [Interruption.] I am now assured by my hon. Friends who were here that he said—HANSARD will show whether he did so—it was a letter from one permanent official to another permanent official.
I have been in four Parliaments, although there are Members here who have been here for a longer time. I have never yet in any of these four Parliaments heard a member of the

Government, the head of a Department, advancing as a reason, as evidence, as advice, as a basis for introducing legislation, a letter from one permanent official in his Department to another permanent official in his Department. This is quite unprecedented and very strange, because we all know that there are letters passing from one permanent official to another at any time in the day, and there must be hundreds of thousands of such letters passing all the time. They are like ships in the night, passing each other, from one permanent official to another, and whilst he is receiving one, he is already sending another one to somebody else.
If we were to accept such correspondence, which goes on permanently and ceaselessly, as a sufficient basis for justifying the introduction of a new piece of legislation, we would be acting in a very strange manner. I therefore hope that when my hon. Friend comes to reply he will be able to produce some better reason for including this provision in the Bill.
Moreover, the House is in a very great difficulty, as far as this, according to the Secretary of State, cardinal piece of advice is concerned, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not quote directly from the letter. As he did not quote directly from the letter verbatim, there is apparently no constitutional obligation—I am subject to direction here—for this letter to be laid as a document before the House.
Moreover, speaking entirely for myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would be hesitant in joining any of my hon. Friends in pressing the Secretary of State to put this letter as a document on the Table, because I think, on general constitutional grounds, that it would be undesirable if a head of a Department were to be forced to disclose private correspondence that is passed from one permanent official in his Department to another permanent official in his Department. I think all government would become impossible if such a constitutional obligation were ever established.
But if that is so, thenipso facto,no head of Department should even introduce such private correspondence as evidence or in making a case for introducing a certain type of legislation. This is wholly wrong, and my right hon. Friend ought to be advised to withdraw


this point altogether, because if he were to persist in it, then I see a serious danger of an invasion of our very important constitutional convention that the advice given to him by his private officials is in fact private, that he is solely responsible for the case that he makes and that he must put the evidence upon which he bases his case upon the Table of the House, which my right hon. Friend has not done.
The House is completely in the dark this morning, in being asked to give a Third Reading to this measure, as to the kind of argument or the kind of evidence contained in this blessed letter. Nobody knows what is in it. We have not been told by the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State were to say today, "I agree that the constitutional convention ought not to be breached. I am not prepared to lay the letter as a document, but I will now give you the reasons that finally persuaded me to put this Part of the Bill into the Bill" then the House would know what we were talking about. At the moment nobody knows what the advice was; nobody knows what the evidence was. There was only a hint, an implication that somehow or other in this particular letter from one permament official to another there was either overriding evidence, new evidence or overriding argument, which made a completely uncertain position now so hard and certain that my right hon. Friend was able to proceed to introduce legislation.
We ought to know what is this new evidence, if there is any, overriding the uncertain evidence that had been supplied hitherto. In the absence of this information, it is quite incomprehensible to see how my right hon. Friend came to introduce this part of the legislation.
The other important point is the context and the real political reasons behind this provision and behind some of the other provisions. My right hon. Friend made an attempt last night, which the Minister of Social Security has not made, to justify the provision withdrawing free school milk from secondary school pupils by saying that all these savings and economy measures must be seen as a whole. Of course, this is by no means a justification for being able to avoid

the most careful and detailed examination of every one of them. If we once came to accept that because the members of the Cabinet sit round a table and say to each other, "You cut this and therefore you will cut that" and they agree amongst themselves, they can then come to this House and say there is no need for any detailed justification of any particular economy measure, that indeed would be turning the Constitution upside down.
It is wholly irrelevant to this House, whether this is the result of a compromise or a package deal, or call it what you will. In this House, every Measure affecting the lives of our citizens has to be justified on its own grounds, or it cannot be justified at all. The whole doctrine of a package deal is totally alien to democracy and is totally hostile to the doctrine that has hitherto inspired our constitutional arrangements. This was pointed out on Second Reading when we looked at the peculiar agglomeration of measures contained in this Bill. It is a dog's breakfast, if ever there was one. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash was talking about dogs' licences, but dogs' breakfasts would be more appropriate than his reference when he was casting about for a new subject—

Mr. Alison: Not a new subject, but new sources of revenue. I beg the hon. Member to be fair.

Mr. Mendelson: Yes, I know. The hon. Gentleman is always very keen to talk about new sources of revenue, because he does not want to admit to the House that he approves of the withdrawal of free school milk, because his party has been advocating it for years. That is the real reason. But I leave the hon. Gentleman where he is at the present time.
I return to the second main aspect which, I submit, ought to dominate the debate on Third Reading, namely, the context in which this Bill is put. Many hon. Friends of mine have been asking themselves again and again: why on earth should the Government stick to this particular provision; why should they not accept the overwhelming sense of Members on their own side? It has been known before that, on occasion, when a Government find that in a Bill one of


the provisions is particularly unfavourably received, they make some concession to the House or to their own party. Why are the Government so stubborn on this matter?
The real reasons are very serious and very grave. If the Government ever reintroduce the Order to reimpose prescription charges, there will be an even bigger opposition, and there will be even more determination to defeat this Order when and if it comes before the House. I hope it never will. But the context is this. For many years there has been ignorant and ill-informed campaigning by members of the Conservative Party, by some self-appointed spokesmen in the business community, and we have recently seen that some of them have moved from the withdrawal of free school milk from secondary school children to a demand to withdraw it from the primary school children as well. We also have the obscene spectacle of very rich men demanding the withdrawal of free school milk from children who need it. The Government are to blame, because they have opened the door to this further demand by the provision that they have put in this Bill.
After many years of ill-informed and ignorant campaigning by people basically hostile to our Welfare State, there has been built up a campaign at home, and the campaign at home has never been successful. The Conservative Party put forward measures designed to destroy the Welfare State at the 1964 election and at the 1966 election. On both occasions they have been rejected by a majority of the British people. But that was not the end of the story. When the country got into a balance of payments difficulty, there were demands from abroad that our attitude, and the attitude of this Government to our own people, must be determined by the policy considerations and the outdated social views of people who are trying to control our affairs from abroad.
Here we come to the real heart of the matter. The great danger to democratic government in this country is this—and it is involved in this Bill and in this particular provision—that when the Conservative Party have put forward their antisocial reactionary schemes to the electorate, and after the electorate have rejected these schemes, there is then a way of re

entry, namely, by imposing, through international bankers' committees and consortia, a social policy upon the Government of this country which the people do not want and which the Government themselves do not want. This is the real truth of the dilemma that faces my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, and I believe them when they say, "We do not really want this any more than you do".
I believe this to be wholly true. I believe this to be their real feeling about the matter. But what they do not tell us is this: that they have been intimidated, that panic and hysteria have been built up, that they have been made to believe that the safety of the £ and the future depends on whether they prove to be tough enough with the British people. That is the doctrine they have accepted, and it is from that doctrine that this legislation flows. This is the real and tragic kernel of the matter that the House has to consider. It goes beyond this Bill, although it does involve some of the provisions of this Bill.
This particular attitude has its own seeds of destruction, because whenever we approach the real purposes of Government after devaluation, whenever we begin to talk about the first requirements, the release of real economic resources for the export drive, we immediately come up against the impossible position of morale and enthusiasm among working people. This export drive is not only a mechanical method, as my hon. Friend well knows. I am not trying to teach him this, for he has as much experience as any of us. What is required in addition to the release of real resources is a conviction that things are fairly handled and fairly done. If productivity deals are going to be considered, if there is not to be too much suspicion on either side, then everybody must feel that the burdens are not concentrated on a particular section of the community. This Bill increases the burden unfairly and unduly upon working people, and on the lower-paid groups in particular. That is why the Bill is wrong.
If devaluation is to work, if the success of post devaluation policies is to come about, then we need a release of real resources. Nobody has yet been able to prove that this Bill has anything to do


with the release of such resources. We need the good will of working people as well as industrialists, and we need a sensible social policy. This is not the time to reduce the social benefits and the feeling that they are living in a just society for working people. This is the time to improve these conditions. If everybody could feel that if the Government were to say to the trade unions, "This is a period where some wage increases are justified, but from our point of view and from a national point of view they ought to be limited; everybody ought to be reasonable about it." I should have said that the Government would be helped by an improvement in the Welfare State instead of choosing this particular time to cut down on the welfare services.
I must not be too long, as other hon. Members want to take part in this debate. I therefore come to the last point that I wish to mention, and this concerns the very real influence of the Department of Education and Science throughout the country on educationists, on local authorities and on various other groups concerned with the education of children. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), who had the difficult task of making a speech at all due to the attitude of his party to these matters, tried to suggest at one time or another in his speech that the local education authorities might decide, as one man, "We will ignore what the Ministry feel about this; we will ignore the legislation; we will ignore the attitude of the Secretary of State for Education; we will just go ahead and do as we like."
But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that what the Secretary of State for Education and Science does has a very great deal of influence upon the attitude of education committees and the attitude of local authorities. If the unproven doctrine, however flimsily based, were to go abroad that there is a case for the abolition of free school milk for secondary children, it would have a very bad influence upon educationists in local authorities and on local education committees. The local authorities cannot ignore what the Minister says.
I would go further than that. The Secretary of State for Education has often pioneered improving the social provisions in our schools and he has no right to

abdicate that task without any real evidence that he is entitled to do so and that there is a case for doing it. It therefore remains a matter of the greatest possible importance as to the attitude that he and his Department adopt, and I urge my hon. Friends to accept that all of us who have made this a major matter of debate and a major fight are deeply and desperately convinced that this is a most dangerous path that the Secretary of State has embarked upon and that the Government should reconsider the particular provisions of this Bill.

11.20 a.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I have been pleasantly surprised at the support on the benches opposite for, indirectly, the agricultural industry, but I must say, coming from a constituency which has a very large number of lower-paid workers, that I entirely support many of the arguments which have been put on the other side over the effect that this Bill will have upon lower-paid workers.
I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I stayed up here from late last night but was not able to get in, and I have come back this morning hoping I would be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, over two matters.
I also listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I could gather no information at all upon where he based this cut in free school milk for secondary school children. I should have been far happier—and I am a member of an education committee on a local authority—if we had been given some information. He made himself even more ridiculous than ever before when he started quoting a letter passed front one official to another official in his own Department. That was quite clear; I heard it myself. We have no information at all as to whether the take-up of free school milk in secondary schools could be improved, whether it should be improved and whether there is any real need for this free school mik or not. Therefore, I am in great doubt as to whether the Government have thought through this part of the Bill at all.
The second point on which I wish to speak for a few moments is this. The


Bill will hit the lower-paid worker—and my constituency largely comprises lower-paid workers—because wages in rural areas are based upon agricultural earnings. Agricultural earnings, as I have never tired of saying in this House at every available opportunity, have been £ 5 to £ 6 a week less than the average of all other manual workers, who are described in the bulletin of the Minister of Labour—E5 to £ 6 less than the average for working five to six hours a week longer work to gain those earnings. In addition, the agricultural worker, who has only just received some increase—I think, 15s. a week—has through devaluation had his earnings devalued from the former figure by 15s. a week, even if one only takes devaluation as being 2s. in the £ An amount of 2s. in the on £ 15 a week, which is the average earnings of the agricultural worker, is 30s. a week cut. I know it should be 2s. 10d.. but, if one takes 2s., in fact the agricultural worker is 15s. a week worse off since devaluation than he was previously. In addition, having received, as I say, 15s. a week increase quite recently, through the Wages Board, he has now had his wages cut by 2s. in the £ devaluation, if not more, and I feel that this will affect the whole of the wages in the lower-paid area.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On the question of the low-paid worker suffering as a result of this Clause, does the hon. Member realise that the worker might get the sack? If the farmer is producing milk for the schools and there is less demand for the milk, he might sack the agricultural worker?

Mr. Hawkins: I entirely agree, for once in a while, with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I agree that this is a danger.
I was coming on to the point of how, in my opinion, this cut of £ 5 million is no cut at all because in fact the agricultural industry will straightaway ask for an increase because of less sales of milk. They will ask for an increase in the subsidies. This Bill, which cuts in every possible way, at the lower worker, and he has already had his low earnings devalued, is, in my opinion, nothing but the result of the complete mismanagement of our economic affairs by this miserable Government over the last three and a half years.

11.26 a.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The House seems increasingly to call upon the animal kingdom for its metaphors. This morning we have had the gift horses, the sacred cows, the sacrificial lambs, the dogs' licences, the dog's breakfast, and I now think the hon. Gentleman has brought in really a cat of another colour when he starts to talk about the agricultural workers.
I am very much concerned, like most hon. Members, about this Bill and its provisions and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) was quite right when he said that we all, on front and back benches, have been strained and stressed by these measures. I accept exactly that it must have been even more difficult for some of my colleagues on the Front Bench to reach these difficult decisions than it may have been for us. I still find some of them incomprehensible.
We have all had to compromise, in various ways, over most of the issues that we have had in the last few months. We usually dig our toes in at the points about which we know most, and I know the House will forgive me if the point on this Bill about which I have been digging my toes in most has been Clause 3 and the question of what happens to the health of children if we start to impose a restriction on the amount of prophylactic milk that we pour into their bodies while they are growing.
I am equally concerned with Clauses 1 and 2, but I have been prepared—and I say quite frankly to my hon. Friends that this was a difficult decision—to compromise on that and I have accepted the poll tax. Nobody fought harder in March, 1961, on the imposition of a poll tax for health services than my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security, and I know that he shares the distaste for that kind of increase. Nevertheless, when we are faced with a choice of evils, very often we have to accept reluctantly and disappointedly that kind of provision.
When it comes to the question of expenditure on health, I never regard this as expenditure. This is investment. What we are trying to do is to have a healthy nation. If we talk in terms of export,


and of productivity, if we talk in terms of an increasing standard of living for the population, then the health of the people is the first consideration. Therefore, when we get this mean and miserable cut of £ 5 million, one inevitably feels that this is one thing that cannot be accepted.
The argument was made on nutritional grounds during the Committee stage, and I do not propose to repeat many of the things that were said at that time, but I think sometimes in relation to the whole question of this £ 5 million and other measures that affect the health of the nation, the Government have a kind of crazy logic at the back of their decisions.
For some reason or other, in health matters, we apply the same kind of standards of judgment as we do on productivity. In the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health we take pride in the fact that we have more hospital beds used this year than were used last year, that we have given more treatment to people. In fact, the more people who are ill and the larger the number of statistics at the end of the time, it seems the greater success the Department has had; but in health this is the one place where the opposite is true. The fewer people we have to treat in hospital—apart from saving in my area £ 46 a week for everyone put into a bed—the fewer people who have to visit the general practitioner, the fewer children who are ill from lack of the right nutritional standards, the better and the more successful the policy has been.

Mr. Rhodes: I confess immediately that my knowledge of this subject is markedly less than the hon. Gentleman's, but could I ask him a straight question in all sincerity? Is it not true that with the improvement in medical science one gets earler diagnosis and consequently a longer period of treatment?

Mr. Pavitt: That seems a little wide, but the more successful a Health Service is the longer people live, and the longer people live the more chronic bronchitis one has to deal with. This is a fact. But if one starts to take measures like this and if early diagnosis is impossible—prescription charges are an even worse case—one increases the bill to the nation. In terms of economics it does not make sense.
In Clause 3 we seem to be applying a crazy kind of logic. In health matters we say, "You can cut school milk, you can cut other charges elsewhere, but the one thing that you must not do is touch hospitals; we must keep them filled". Perhaps Clause 3 will help to make sure that the beds in the new hospitals that we are going to build will be fully occupied by children who have not had the proper prophylactic measures. [Interruption.] On that, of course. I get the obvious comment from my colleagues that I have stretched the argument far too far, and I accept that I have done so. But the basis still remains that if one starts to make inroads into practical or constructive measures to prevent people getting ill, it inevitably means that one has got to take other measures elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) made a great point about whether, because it is permissive and not mandatory, the Government's measure on economic grounds will act as effectively as the Treasury would obviously like it to do. All I say about that is that it makes our planning more difficult. If they know that 58 per cent. intake of the secondary modern schools are on milk, know how much they are giving to the primary schools and know their agricultural policy, the Government and the Treasury can plan their whole economic policy in a known situation far more efficiently. But the hon. Member for Barkston Ash pointed out that until the next two years are over we shall not know which Labour-controlled councils will insist on giving milk to their secondary schools and which Conservative-controlled councils will decide that the ratepayers' money is more important.
I want to raise the whole question of the saving under the Bill in the context of our priorities. According to the Financial Memorandum, the Bill will save £ 16,780,000. Will the Government confirm this? I am very pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the Government Front Bench; he is perhaps the one person on the Front Bench to give me the answer. I have already put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am still awaiting a reply.
On 24th January the Minister of State, the Board of Trade, told the House, on


the subject of investment grants, that we were to give £ 39 million to companies controlled by persons resident outside the United Kingdom on new ships ordered before 8th January, 1968. Some £ 35 million will be on ships built outside the United Kingdom. We are talking about £ 5 million in Clause 3, and we are talking about £ 25 million in Clause 2, which in total, is £ 5 million less than the amount which we are to give to foreign controlled companies in investment grants on ships not built in Newcastle-on-Tyne, not built on the Clyde, but built in Amsterdam. I cannot see the logic of that, when we are asked to cut back expenditure on our own people in this country.
I have no Chauvinistic feeling. If, like many hon. Members, I have spent much time persuading the Government to spend money in Botswana, it is because I think it essential for the peace of the world that money should be given to under-developed countries. Bait I cannot see the logic of the £ 5 million in Clause 3 and the £ 25 million in Clause 2, making £ 30 million in all, against the background of £ 39 million given to companies not even owned by British people, with ships built in foreign ports taking £ 35 million of that sum. I cannot see why the Government cannot alter this Bill by recognising that we can save an additional £ 5 million, to help the country out of its difficulties, in the way that I have suggested.
I do not claim to be a rebel. Every now and again my Party moves to the right, and I find myself on the left because my party has moved to the right. I do not move at all. I have a crick in my back from leaning over backwards for three years trying to support the Government. I shall not oppose this Bill this morning. I shall abstain. Indeed, I feel keenly that the Government are making the wrong move. I feel intensely for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the tremendous job that he is trying to do and the difficulties that he is facing in trying to do it. But when he makes the wrong choice and the wrong decision, I for one must make the strongest possible protest. I say that in the kindest way and with sympathy for my colleagues, who have an even more difficult task than I have; not only have they to take the decisions but they have to shoulder res-

ponsibility for the consequences which those decisions bring in their train.

11.36 a.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) touched on a key point in the last phrase of his speech—a point which no other hon. Member has yet mentioned. I refer to how hon. Members intend to vote. It would help If I stated quite clearly that I intend to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill and against the Closure, should it be moved. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many tellers?"] Unfortunately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that some explanation of last night's episode might be called for at this occasion. It was, in fact—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. That would not be in order on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Pardoe: I feared that you would not let me get away with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I regard the Bill as a total disgrace upon the Government and nothing that was said on Second Reading, in Committee or this morning has changed my mind. I do not think that the Government have even bothered to produce cogent reasons why they have had to go back on so many of their promises, any more than Judas produced any reasons why he sold out. This Bill does not demonstrate any economic strategy at all.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver.

Mr. Pardoe: Is that all that the Government have sold out for—30 pieces of silver? Or is it £ 5 million?
The Bill does not seem to me to fit into any economic plan either real or imaginary. What is the purpose of the Bill? First of all, apparently, it is to make devaluation work. That is presumably the central theme. That is what we have been told by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen from the Government Front Bench. I believe that the Bill demonstrates the total lack of preparation for devaluation because it is a hotch-potch, a patchwork quilt of tawdry measures, foisted upon us in order to try to show


the bankers of the world that the Government mean business.
This is not planning. It is, I believe, anti-planning by an anti-Government. Will it have any effect at all on devaluation? I do not believe that it will make devaluation work. I do not believe that there is one measure in the Bill which will help to do that. Even if one accepts the central thesis of the Government's argument, that it is necessary to increase taxation and necessary to produce economies in Government spending in order to make devaluation work, are these measures in the Bill the right way in which to go about it? Do they represent the right priorities? If one has to produce economies, if one has to increase taxation, why choose to increase taxation upon those whom it will hit hardest? Why not choose to impose taxation in many other fields where it would not affect the lowest-paid workers? Why choose to cut school milk? There are plenty of places in which one might have saved £ 5 million if one had decided that that was necessary. Are these the new social priorities of the Socialist Government—if it can be called anything like that today?
Clause 1—and this is the first reason that I am against it—increases the poll tax, the National Insurance contribution. Of course, one can say that it is only increased by a shilling, but since they came to power the Government have increased the contribution of the working man in this country through the insurance stamps by five shillings. This is therefore part of a process. I have consistently opposed the poll tax.
I remind right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite what they said about the Conservative Government when they relied on the poll tax. They said:
As a result the Tories have placed increasing reliance upon flat-rate poll tax contributions which fall heavily on the lowest paid. The Tories have more than doubled the cost of the insurance stamp since they took office.
Incidentally, I am quoting from the bible of the Government, a document produced by the Labour Party in 1963 called "Twelve Wasted Years of Tory Rule". One no longer needs to make speeches about the Government. One simply reads out quotations from that document and changes the word "Tories" to "Labour".

Indeed, one can turn up any chapter on the Government's policy and find a host of broken promises. I am making precisely the same points as the Secretary of State for Education and Science would have been making if he had been sitting on the Opposition Front Bench in this debate. I believe that I am right to make those points, and I believe that other hon. Gentlemen were quite right to make them, too.
I have consistently opposed the Poll Tax, and I shall go on doing so, because the people who sent me to the House of Commons live in an area where incomes are exceptionally low—the lowest of any county in the country—and they will not stand for this kind of increase by a Government which once they might have believed understood what social priorities were all about.
It is not as if the Government had not been offered alternatives. I am not simply attacking them for what they have done. I have consistently put forward in this debate other ways in which they could have gone about financing the social security system. On Third Reading it would not be in order again to go into the details of the social security tax, but the Government have had alternatives put to them.
They could have increased the Exchequer contribution. As I pointed out, they attacked the Conservatives vehemently, again in their own bible, for reducing the Exchequer contribution, and they said that the Conservatives had increased the proportion of the total contribution which fell on the employer and on the employee. One of the cardinal points of Labour's social policy in the 1945– 1950 Government was that there should be fair shares in contributing to social security as between the three partners—the employer, the employee and the State. We have seen in the latest figures of the Actuary's Report that the State's contribution has fallen to a mere 16 per cent. That is going back totally on the views which the Labour Party expressed when they were in Opposition and even when they were last in Government, when at least they had a social conscience which was not a tattered shred of a thing.
I come to the Actuary's Report, which is one other basis for the increase in the National Insurance contribution. Without wishing to criticise a civil servant, I must


say that I regard this report and those which have gone before it as a totally inadequate basis for the kind of decisions that we are being asked to make. We cannot accept the kind of statement that is included in this Report. It goes back upon so many of the things that these Reports have said in the past. How do we know that these figures are right if those which he produced a year ago were so hopelessly wrong? I do not believe the figures in this Report for one minute, and I believe that within six months or so the Government will have to explain that the whole actuarial basis of the scheme has gone wrong.
Why is that so? Because there is not such a thing as an actuarial basis in the National Insurance system. Let us forget the word fund" and the word "actuary". Let us sack the Government actuary. Let us not get another one but have an accountant instead. Let us forget these old-fashioned phrases and get on with financing the Health Service in a modern way.
How do we know that the present trends which he mentions will continue? Last year he told us that he did not think that they would continue. Now he tells us that there is some confirmation that they will continue. What do we know about the cause of earlier retirement? What is the cause of increased sickness and increased absence from work as a result of sickness? There are very disturbing trends which the Government should certainly have investigated and tried to explain without simply putting up the National Insurance contribution. The Government have said nothing about their investigations, and that is yet another reason why I shall oppose the Bill today.
The National Health contributions were dealt with fairly fully in the Committee stage. These are raised to pay for the exemptions in the prescription charges. We are being asked again to vote for a figure in which I have no confidence whatever. The £ 25 million which it is said these exemptions will cost is a wild guess. I do not suppose it is acc irate even to the nearest £ 10 million. So we may well find that there is no need to cut out the £ 5 million of school milk because the wild guess may be wrong by £ 5 million. There is no attempt to define, for instance, who the

chronic sick are or how they shall be adjudged.
Then one comes to the most disgraceful part, the need apparently for Socialist priority which occasions the Government to ask for £ 5 million to be saved by cutting school milk. When the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) denounced the Bill in ringing terms at the start of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Education laughed out loud. I never thought I should see the day when a Socialist Secretary of State for Education would actually laugh at the taking away of school milk.
This is a miserable measure.

Mr. Mendelson: That had nothing to do with my right hon. Friend's laugh. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayreshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), as we all know, is one of the most humorous Members of the House, and he began with a paraphrase that made all of us laugh. The hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Pardoe: I realise that Labour Members are very good at laughing out of the back of their heads, but I happened to see the face of the Secretary of State for Education.
This is a miserable measure.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Pardoe: I shall certainly not withdraw; I have no intention of withdrawing.
This is a miserable measure, and it is a very small saving. Why not adopt some alternative? Why come to us and say "Because we have to get rid of milk in secondary schools to save £ 5 million, we will get rid of it entirely. We will make no provision for charging for it; we will not get our revenue through the Income Tax form."? Why not accept the alternatives? Why do away with school milk entirely?
What about secondary schools which supply sweets and pop for sale? Was it never in the mind of the Government to divert to the provision of milk the money with which some kids come to school to buy such things? They certainly have not made any attempt to do so, but I think that would have been far better.
Although I certainly would not argue for cutting family allowances, I should rather have seen family allowances increased by less than school milk cut. School milk is one of the benefits in kind of the total provision for family allowances. When one advocates increasing family allowances, the criticism comes from all manner of political opinion that the money is spent in bingo, beer or betting. I do not myself accept these arguments and have often argued against them. Nevertheless, this is one part of family provision that is in kind. One knows at least that it is going into the bellies of the kids. It seems extraordinary that the Government should have increased family allowances but at the same time removed the one part that was certainly being spent in the right place.
Various hon. Gentlemen opposite, and certainly the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), yesterday referred to school milk as a Socialist measure. It is no such thing. It was introduced as part of the Beveridge Plan, as part of the family endowment plan. Lord Beveridge argued that school milk and school meals were part of the total provision that was to be made for families—

Mr. Heffer: As a matter of absolute accuracy, it may well have been in the Beveridge Report but it was actually introduced by the Labour Government in 1946.

Mr. Pardoe: I am not denying that. I am just trying to deny the ownership of one idea. There are no better measures that this country could ever have than Liberal proposals implemented by a Labour Government. They do sometimes work. I wish the Government would implement a few more.
Government agricultural policies have caused a milk surplus, and at the very time when we have a milk surplus—it is of gigantic proportions and by the autumn will be extremely serious—the Government take away this bastion of our sales. The Government would be justified in doing this only if they could show—and they certainly have not shown it—that all children get enough milk or, at any rate, that the great majority of children get enough milk. But all the market research in this field shows that

the greatest single barrier to the consumption of more milk in the family is price—not the barrier of desiring it, not the barrier of taste, but the barrier of price. I could show the right hon. Gentleman a report which illustrates this and proves it conclusively. Price is the main barrier; very often housewives say they would buy an extra pint or two pints for their children, because it would be drunk, but they cannot afford it. But they know that if they paid the money, it would be drunk. If the Government could have shown us that these families did not want more milk, and that the children would not drink it if it were provided, they might have been on better ground.
On Clause 5, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to tell us something more about the items concerning the charges for road accident victims. It is unfortunate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that an Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) and myself was not called. The point of it was to ascertain from the Government how far they are prepared to go. They have said that they want to increase the charges above the maximum level of £ 50; I should like to know how far they are prepared to go. I see very considerable arguments in favour of going the whole hog and charging the whole amount.
This seems to be a Bill which is a symbol of a crumbling Government. They have lost all social purpose and abandoned their social conscience. It is a despicable and disreputable Bill. Our opposition has been consistent throughout. We have shown our alternatives; therefore, we have shown that we have a duty and right to divide the House on this Bill. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who feel as I do about the Bill will join me in the Lobby.
I can only say of the Tory opposition that it has been pathetic throughout the whole course of the debates on the Bill. There is no burden that I would rather shoulder than that of opposing the consensus which exists between the two Front Benches. Throughout the debates we have tried to keep the Labour Government's word for them. That is why I hope that many hon. Gentlemen will support the Liberals in the Lobby. I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) will do so, too,


and that she will be able to say why by catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not support us in the Lobby, they will have to say what part of the Bill they support. They have opposed almost every aspect of almost every Clause except the one dealing with civil defence. Are they saying that by sitting there, doing what I said on Second Reading—exercising their conscience by the seat of their pants—they are supporting the abolition of school milk, the increase in National Insurance contributions and the increase in National Health contributions simply for the sake of getting a cut in their prize sacred cow, civil defence?

Mr. Heffer: There are aspects of the Bill, such as the speeding up of building grants to development areas, which I and my hon. Friends feel are very beneficial. There are other aspects of the Bill which are also beneficial. Our opposition to the aspects which we do not like will be made very clear indeed by our vote. We do not need the advice of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pardoe: That is precisely what the hon. Gentleman does need. On Second Reading hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to support us in the Lobby. I remember the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) carefully avoiding making a promise about how he would vote until after I had declared my position and then he knew he would not have to join us in the Lobby. So the only consistent opposition has come from the Liberals. I firmly believe that if we had not said that we would divide the House hon. Members opposite would never have gone into the Lobby.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While it is possible from these benches to discern quite a number of opponents of the Bill, I find it singularly difficult to see very many supporters. Is it possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to do anything about the fact that forty Members are not present?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The sitting began at 2.30 on Monday, 26th February, and was interrupted by a suspension under a Sessional Order of 12th December at 1.33 a.m., and the interrupted proceedings were resumed at 10 o'clock this morning, also in pursuance of the Sessional Order.

The sitting is therefore still Monday's sitting, and under Standing Order 30(1), a sitting which goes after ten o'clock cannot include a Count. So there is nothing that I can do to help the hon. Gentleman.

11.56 a.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) is two personalities rolled into one. Whenever I listen to one of his speeches, I find it a blend of two-thirds cogent argument well and modestly presented and one-third behaviour deriving directly from TheMagnet, The GemandThe Pop.He is in one way a strange mixture of the adult politician and the cad of the Remove. If I may borrow a phrase which is often used about maiden speakers, though the hon. Gentleman is not one, we shall all look forward very much to hearing his further contributions in this House when he has grown up.
I want to comment on two things that the hon. Gentleman has said. He said first of all that the only real opposition has come from the Liberal Party. He spoke of me in particular as having been careful during the debate on the Second Reading to avoid indicating what I would do about a division until he had said he would divide the House. He does me a great injustice, as I am about to show, and I accept his apology in advance.
The debate on the Second Reading began a little after 3.30 p.m. At about 11.30 a.m. that morning I handed in a note to Mr. Speaker telling him that I proposed to divide the House that evening. It is clear, therefore, that my intention that there should be a division was not contingent on the benevolence of the hon. Gentleman and that what he has just said, I am sure inadvertently. does me a great injustice. I merely repeat that I accept his apology unuttered.

Mr. Pardoe: A private note to Mr. Speaker is not for publication; speeches in the House are. The hon. Gentleman carefully avoided making a public pronouncement about it until after I had declared my position and he knew he would not have to vote. Furthermore, if he was so intent at 11.30 that morning on dividing the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it would be for the benefit of the House


if both hon. Gentlemen confined their remarks to the Third Reading.

Mr. Mikardo: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will judge between the hon. Member and me as to whether his accusations are justified.
I will comment on only one other thing which the hon. Gentleman said, and here with less disapproval than was the case with my last comment. He said that when we come to add up all the sums at the end it may very well turn out that the saving which it is intended to effect in the Bill and the somewhat lesser amount which is actually effected by way of saving as a result of the Bill may turn out to be very much smaller than the margin of error in the overall economic calculations at which this is directed, and that we might be straining at a gnat and letting the whole camel go through.
When I listened to the hon. Gentleman saying that my mind went back to a rather similar, perhaps rather more graphic moment in 1951 when three distinguished and valuable members of the then Government, including the present Prime Minister, were forced to resign by the insistence of the Treasury at that time. One of the predecessors of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that the Government could not balance the Budget unless they saved £ 13 million by imposing some charges on the Health Service. In the outcome that year we had a surplus of £ 232 million.

An Hon. Member: We tore ourselves to pieces for it.

Mr. Mikardo: As an hon. Friend of mine says, we tore ourselves to pieces over an argument about encroachment into the service which in the upshot amounted to rather less than 6 per cent. of the surplus which we eventually got. I am afraid that the parallel is much too close for my liking, and it forms part of the reason why I oppose the Measure.
Last night the Secretary of State for Education and Science invited hon. Members to look at the measure in the round, to look at the whole of it, and all of its economic implications taken together. Most hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have spoken this morning readily accepted that invitation and have

directed their arguments to the Measure in its place as a part of the Government plan for, to use the Secretary of State's term, making devaluation work, a part of the overall plan to improve the economic health of the nation. I propose to do that as well.
My hon. Friends who have spoken and one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite have pointed out that it is important to consider the effect of the measures contained in the Bill upon workers, trades unions and others whose co-operation is vitally necessary if we are to make devaluation work. For the first few hours of our sitting tomorrow I shall absent myself from the service of the House because I shall be in Croydon at the conference of executives of trade unions which is considering the Report put to it by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress. I shall also, incidentally, have to absent myself in the morning from a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, which I have not been able to attend in the last month—a deprivation which I have borne with my usual cheerful fortitude. I shall be going directly to Croydon. The members of Her Majesty's Government who are concerned with economic policy, as we have heard and read over and over again, are watching the meeting at Croydon very closely indeed. It is highly germane to the success of the Government's economic policy, highly germane to the problem of making devaluation work—to use again the shorthand phrase of the Secretary of State—and highly germane to what the Government are up to whether or not tomorrow's meeting of the executives of trades unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress will adopt the sort of middle road which the General Council has put forward between the views of the Government, from which it strongly dissents, and the views of the Government's most direct critics.
Does my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary think that putting a bit more on the stamp will encourage the good will and co-operation of the People who will be at Croydon tomorrow? Does he think that the men at Croydon tomorrow, who will include representatives of some of the lowest paid workers in the country, will be induced to stand up and cheer support for the Government because some of their members are having


the milk for their secondary school children withdrawn? In what way is this Bill a contribution to creating that framework, that atmosphere, that climate of co-operation which we need throughout the country if we are to make devaluation work? In what way is the Bill a contribution to creating throughout the country a feeling of justice based upon equality of sacrifice, on the protection and shielding—promised by the Prime Minister but so far not fulfilled—of those least able to bear burdens from the worst of the burdens? In what way does the Bill make a contribution to creating the atmosphere in which people will pull together, not in the sloganeering sense of a "Back Britain" movement which urges school children voluntarily to give up their milk—the idiots, the nit-wits—but in a real, solid, genuine sense of work?
I am extremely concerned about the effect on the political climate, the economic climate, the industrial climate and the working climate of Clause 3. I do not say anything about the nutritional aspects of the matter because that was well discussed in Committee yesterday. Indeed, it was the only part of the matter which was discussed. The only debate we had was on an Amendment which, though important, was very narrow and dealt purely with a nutritional inquiry. There was no discussion of the economic aspects. Only the Secretary of State made a reference to the economic aspect, and he said he was surprised that it had not been mentioned during the debate. There was a very good reason why it had not been mentioned during the debate—that to mention it would have been out of order, as he was out of order. It was in order only on the Question. That the Clause stand part of the Bill. When I rose to mention it on that Question I was slapped down and not allowed to speak. I make no criticism of the Chair. I am merely explaining why the Third Reading debate has to be a little longer than it otherwise would have been—because now we are invited to consider the economic implications.
I will say two things about the nutritional implications. First, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) talked about the possibility of some local authorities going ahead on their own, irrespective of what the Bill says, in

order to maintain the standards of welfare within their own community, and he instanced a number of local authorities which he thought might do it. He mentioned Penistone and Poplar. I do not know whether he was recalling as he spoke—I was—Poplar nearly 40 years ago and what happened then? We were in a very similar situation then. Again, the parallels are uncomfortably close. Again the Government were cutting savagely into the living standards of lower income people. At that time local authorities and boards of guardians were being used as the instruments of the Government attack on the lower income groups. They all stood for it except Poplar, whose leading representatives went to prison rather than further those mean actions. Among those who went to prison was perhaps the most distinguished of my predecessors in the representation of my constituency, George Lansbury, a man who was honoured for many things but not least for the part which he played on that occasion and the contribution which he made on that occasion to creating throughout the country a totally new attitude to social welfare. That was a contribution which came to fruition only twenty years later. I must tell the hon. Member for Barkston Ash—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before my hon. Friend gives that interesting piece of history, will he also add that it was a distinguished Scottish Minister, John Wheatley, who did justice to Poplar and had the whole thing wiped out?

Mr. Mikardo: Yes, that is so, and I am glad to join in the tribute which my hon. Friend pays to John Wheatley who sailed along with the tide which Poplar had created.
I was about to tell the hon. Member for Barkston Ash that it will not be so easy for Poplar to do in 1968 what it did 40 years ago, because only within the last week or two its local authority has been deprived by an action of the Minister of Housing and Local Government of a very substantial portion of its income. This is, therefore, one more burden added to all sorts of previous burdens. Therefore, I do not think that he will find that even those local authorities which object to the action which the Government have taken will be able to do much about it.
I turn to consider the wider implication of this Bill and where it fits into the economic scene. Here I will be helpful to some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—and they are not alone, because there are millions like them throughout the country—confessed that they were unable to see the processes of reasoning by which it is argued that taking away school milk from secondary school children creates a switch of resources into exports or import-saving, or into productive investment. I am about to tell them what are the processes of reasoning which have induced the Government to believe that the way to increase exports or to reduce imports or to increase productive investment is to stop secondary school children from having school milk.
I am able to tell them not because I am cleverer than they are—heaven forbid that I should make any such suggestion—but because I have had the advantage of some private inside information. I obtained this private inside information by employing one of the new industrial espionage services who are advertising their services of electronic bugging in order to enable us to find out what other people are up to. I got to know that in the Treasury they had set up a Departmental committee consisting of a number of the Treasury knights whose job was to write a brief for Ministers to enable them to explain the causation, to enable them to explain that withdrawing school milk helps export and import savings. I got that industrial espionage company electronically to bug the room in which this Departmental committee was sitting. They managed to infiltrate a hidden microphone into the base of the teapot.
It would take me far too long if I were to recount to the House the full tape-recording, which I have, of the proceedings of this Departmental committee, and therefore I am bound to abridge it, and I shall abridge it very considerably indeed. The meeting was opened by the chairman, Sir Roderick, who said, "Our mandate is to work out an explanation to show that the way to get a great export boom is to stop secondary school children from having milk. Let us consider how we can do

that. A sum of £ 5 million equals a lot of milk. We could export that milk." But Sir Cuthbert asked, "Sir Roderick, where would we export it? "Sir Roderick replied," How about Western Europe for a start? "Sir Graham said," I am not sure that that is a very good idea. I hear that they have a big surplus of milk in Western Europe, so we cannot export it to Western Europe".
Then Sir Percy chipped in and said, "It has nothing to do with exporting milk. It is based on releasing labour from inessential industries to essential industries. Supplying secondary school children with milk is an inessential industry. If we could get the labour out of it, we could put it into an export industry and we could increase exports in that way." But Sir Graham asked, "What labour are you talking about?", and Sir Percy replied, "All those lovely milkmaids, who could be put to work, for example, in the assembly of electronic instruments, because they have one qualification in their task which is very valuable in assembling electronic instruments."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is enjoying the hon. Member's speech, but he is getting too involved in detail for a Third Reading debate.

Mr. Mikardo: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that if one is putting the point satirically instead of directly, it does not make it less relevant. We have been invited from the Front Bench to support this measure, because it is to make devaluation work. Ministers claim that it will help exports. I am trying to analyse in what way it will do so. I hope, Sir, that you will not prevent me from concluding this analysis. If you compel me to do so, I will abandon the satirical in favour of the direct, but I do not think that that puts me any more or any less, with great respect, in order or out of order.
And so Sir Percy said, "We want these milkmaids in light assembly. They have one quality which is very much required in light assembly—manual dexterity. All those lovely, long, soft, fingers, which have been made supple by the nuzzling of the udders, could be used perfectly in assembling micro-minaturised components in the electronic industry, for example, in the A.E.I. factory at Woolwich". Sir Cuthbert commented,


" That will not do. They do not have milkmaids any more. They have milking machines". "Ah," said Sir Roderick, "now we are on to something. The contribution which this Bill can make is not to exporting the milk or diverting labour to essential industries; it is to diverting expensive and valuable plant and equipment to the production of exports. Therefore, if these milking machines were not used for milking cows in order to spoil the secondary school children of the country, they could be used in some other industrial use which would help the export drive. I cannot say", he added, "what that industrial use would be, because, as you know gentlemen, I have never been inside a factory, and nor have any of you, because the system of recruiting the experts at the Treasury is carefully designed to preclude anybody who has ever seen inside of a factory. I do read in the Ministry of Labour's returns an industrial classification called extractive industries, and surely a milking machine can be put to some use". "No, no", said Sir Cuthbert. "you have all got it wrong; you have all got it absolutely wrong. The economic importance of this measure and the contribution which it makes to devaluation is not by way of exporting the milk, not by way of diverting the labour to export industries or of diverting machinery to export industries. It is entirely by way of reducing home purchasing power which may suck goods on to the home market which could otherwise be exported. This milk is a very special thing", he said, "and some of these Labour people are going to put down Amendments to except queer people like under £ 15 a week people. We hope they will not be called, but if they are called they will argue that the poorest people ought to be exempted from this deprivation of school milk". Indeed, we are not considering them because they are not now in the Bill and therefore I will not refer to them. "But", he said, "of course, it is just those people who are sucking goods into the home market. For example, I have heard", said Sir Cuthbert, "that we are not exporting enough Jaguars to the United States of America and this is because the local Jaguar agent in the Gorbals and the main Jaguar distributors in the Borough of Tower Hamlets and the Swansea Valley are absolutely pulled over the place with

the demand for Jaguars. Therefore, we have got to cut out all these Poplarites, Swanseaites and Gorbalites".
I have put this point as I have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker satirically. But it is a serious point. If the Government cannot justify this measure on the grounds that the goods released from home demand are to be exported—as they cannot; if they cannot justify it on the grounds that it diverts labour from an inessential to an essential industry—and they cannot; if they cannot justify it on the grounds that they are diverting machinery from the inessential to the essential—and you cannot; and if they cannot justify it on the grounds that by switches of purchasing power it is going to increase exports—and they cannot; then how on earth can the Government say that this is a part of the strategy of making devaluation work.
If I have dealt with this matter in a satirical way, it is because I do not think this proposition of the Government is misguided; it is farcical. We do not need to argue against it. All we need to do is to laugh at it, because it is a laughable, ridiculous, farcical proposition to pretend that we are making a major contribution to the solution of what we all understand to be great economic problems by stopping school children having their milk. If the Government are going to use their majority to force this Measure through, let them do it; let them offend our consciences in that way. But do not let them insult our intelligence by telling us a fairy tale about the motive for it.

12.23 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The greatest single transformation in health in Scotland that one can see in my generation as against that of my parents is the health of the children. I was born and brought up in Glasgow, and I am told by my parents that most big families lost a child and most classrooms had a child who never grew up. Now, fortunately, almost all children grow up, and I think I am right in saying that in the very big school that I attended, no-one died throughout the whole of my school career. I may say that I left the school in 1935 and had free milk throughout my school days until I left school, as did everyone else in the Glasgow schools.
Now children do not have rickets; they do not get T.B.; they have good teeth; they are bigger; they are no longer small statured, as they very often were. The vital factor is nutrition, and milk, of course, has a very important place in that factor. But I would suggest that we should never relax in regard to the health of children, because there was an instance in fairly recent history where we relaxed and rickets re-emerged. T.B. is no longer the scourge of Scotland; but it could re-emerge. Moreover, there are pockets of neglect everywhere.
The recent facts about child poverty shocked many of us, but apart from poverty, where one might expect that they would not get milk in their homes, there are homes where, by not being organised, where there is plenty, there is a lack of nutrition. The milk at school is a constant. It may be that part of the justification—and I have heard this said by some people—is that much of it is wasted, but the waste is not important if we are looking at the gain, and the gain is every single child who swallows the milk every single day. The justification for excluding secondary schoolchildren cannot be that they are bigger, because they are still growing and it is growth that is vital in this matter of nutrition.
On this matter of neglect and food, although I am not suggesting for a minute that we extend free milk to universities, even in my own university career a great many students in my law year were found to have tuberculosis. One died; many were away from university for one year, and I myself was found to have it, although the modern drugs cured it. Students are notoriously always hard up, and we probably spent money on the wrong things, the girls spending money on their stockings instead of on food.
Whenever we relax our vigilance in the matter of nutrition for people who are growing or who are vulnerable, then we must realise that the result may be the re-emergence of these diseases. I suggest that it would be better if, instead of saving this £ 5 million, we regarded it as money well spent in our function as watchdogs over the health of children. I find it a petty economy, because there are so many things that we could easily cut, such as the Polaris

programme, that would be to the benefit of health as well.
It is not acceptable to cut this milk, particularly in Scotland because there food prices are higher and wages are lower. I end by saying that I must vote against this measure. I would put it to the House, that Tom Johnston would have done the same thing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Hugh D. Brown—[Interruption.]

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order. I shall be obliged if the hon. Member can explain to me how I can be in six places at the one time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that is not a point of order.

12.28 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: This problem of being in half-a-dozen places applies to all of us, and I must admit that I myself should be in the Committee discussing sewerage in Scotland. I am missing from that Committee.
I am a bit more temperate, I hope, and a bit more reasonable in my language than the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), but I must say I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I sometimes have the uneasy feeling, though, that his undoubted talents are slightly wasted in the sense of his satirical, destructive approach. I thought the most important part was not the funny part, but where he was trying to relate the significance to the T.U.C. meeting tomorrow. I think this is really a fundamental point.
I do not want to be unduly personal, but I would say to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), that I am getting quite fed up with this constant approach that is being made by her, when she was not even present to vote on Second Reading. Really, this kind of cynical approach to politics—sometimes helped, I may say—

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order. I do not have a cynical approach to politics.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters for the Chair. These are matters for debate.

Mr. Brown: I think this is a fair—

Mr. Heffer: Would the hon. Gentleman give way? Is it not also true that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) would not even be able to participate in this debate this morning, if it had not been for hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House putting down Amendments and voting on them yesterday?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very important measure, and I think e ought to devote ourselves to the Third Reading. Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown: I do not want to pursue this matter, but I do find it difficult to accept tie situation where a single Member, because of the peculiar circumstances can attract all the publicity and attention, and not be subject to the same kind of informed criticism that other Members are subject to. As I say, I take it particularly hard this morning when the hon. Member for Hamilton was not even here on Second Reading, did not even vote on the Second Reading of the Bill, was not here at all yesterday, and certainly was not here at 1.10 a.m. this morning. I am not criticising you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think it is a bit unreasonable when some of us have to sit here so long for the opportunity of saying a few words.
However, I want to be constructive now. I must admit that I am deeply perturbed about the reasons for this Bill. I did not oppose the Government on the increase of contributions. My minor outburst was on the withdrawal of school milk from secondary children. I am merely expressing my reluctance to support the Bill enthusiastically. I did so because, unfortunately, in the country, and certainly among many active people in the Labour Party—there is nothing original about this—there is the feeling that we are attacking the wrong sections of the community. Of course, many of us would be more than willing to face up to a comprehensive review of all the welfare services. Where can savings be made? Everyone knows that there are abuses in school meals. For example, the free meals on Saturdays and on holidays are sometimes abused, an enormous amount of waste. Nevertheless, I think it is wrong that somehow or other all this should be linked up with devaluation. This is the breakdown in the psychology.
I reserve the right, however bumptious or arrogant it might appear to be, from time to time to disagree with all the knowledge, experience and "know how" that exist in the Cabinet. I would like to think that there were differences of opinion in the Cabinet—not to be exploited by all the political commentators who write about things that I am quite sure they have no substance for—and I would like to think that there has been healthy disagreement and argument in the Cabinet about this.
I say to the Chief Secretary: the Budget is coming along. There must be greater evidence that there is going to be more equality of sacrifice than we have seen up to now. This is, I think, the thing that has been troubling many Members in the party, and I am not linked with the regular abstainers. In fact, perhaps it might help if they were to listen to what I am saying. I am not linked with the regular abstainers, and make this plea simply because I feel strongly that unless there is some greater evidence of equality of sacrifice, we shall destroy this Labour movement. I can only appeal to the Chief Secretary and the Front Bench, that it is not enough to come along with sophisticated, clever—I am not suggesting insincere—arguments that might be acceptable in this place or in Cabinet committees. If they are not acceptable by the people we represent, they will fail. I am delighted to have the opportunity to make this clear.
Going home last night, at a quarter past one this morning, hon. Members may have passed the Grosvenor House, the Playboy Club, the Savoy or any of the other establishments in London. I am not pursuing the line that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) or my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) indulged in about the Royal Family. But we cannot expect people to support this proposal unless we can convince them that we are after the William Hickey society as well. I know that it is practically impossible to defeat those who are trying to beat the Income Tax legislation and all the rest of it, but we must at least be seen to be trying to introduce some equality of sacrifice.
Unlike some of my other colleagues, I do not think that the Cabinet or the


Government are deliberately trying to make things more difficult for the working-class people. I do not share that belief. I understand some of the dilemmas with which they are confronted. But, please, in the Budget there must be greater evidence of some equality of sacrifice. Otherwise we just shall not win the next election.

12.37 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: I shall not keep the House long, but I want briefly to thank the Patronage Secretary for the opportunity that he has given for a Third Reading at a morning sitting. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite will perhaps echo the thanks. Too often Third Reading debates disappear in the mirk of early morning hours and are very little reported.
This is a mean and a miserable Bill. It is first and foremost mean and miserable in form. I do not think I have ever seen such a ragbag of a Bill, a Bill covering so many matters. I do not think that any but a Government who have totally lost control of their legislative programme would have produced such a Bill. It is mean and miserable in content. But I shall not seek to repeat many of the points which have been made on all sides of the House during the debate.
What we are doing this morning is erecting a tombstone upon the aspirations, policies and promises which the Government had when they were voted into office. A recent Bill had its name changed in another place to something describing more exactly what it contained. If another place should so change the title of this Bill, I think it would call it "The Socialism (Declaration of Intellectual Bankruptcy) Bill". This is what the Bill does. It is harsh and niggling. A Government who could produce such a Bill have surely lost every pretence of having a coherent policy. Therefore, I would suggest that, rather than produce this sort of Bill, it would be better for the Government to resign and leave to others in the House the job of running the country properly.

12.39 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): We have had an extremely lengthy Third Reading stage. I do not

complain about that on behalf of the Government. I will deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) at the conclusion of my speech.
I want to say at the outset, particularly as there has been a long series of speeches by my hon. Friends casting doubts on various provisions of the Bill, that we fully recognise the genuine area of the concern there is about it. I hope to convince them even at this late stage that this is part of a coherent strategy to deal with the economic situation and is related to other activities of the Government. I concede—I am sure they will concede as much to us—that this is a question on which concern, compassion and strong feelings are not confined to any one section of the House. They have taken an active part, to their credit I think, all through the Bill. Nevertheless, those hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House who have found it right to sustain the Government in the Lobby at various stages equally share that concern and understanding.
There are two ways in which the Bill, which is a technical Bill, tries to make devaluation work—in the time-honoured phrase that we are now using. One is by trying, in some parts of the Bill, to attract the movement of resources from one area of the economy to another. I think my hon. Friends have tended to concentrate too much of their attention on that aspect of the policy.
There is a second—particularly in respect of school milk and Clause 3—even more compelling argument which we have to put forward, and that is the immediate need this year and within the next year or so to have a degree of retrenchment in public expenditure. It is in the light of this second aspect of policy that many of the measures in the Bill have to be seen. I am not saying that people ought not still to argue against them on that account—indeed, they will—but I think the Government are entitled to say that it is in respect of all this that one has to consider the matter.
None of us pretends to be delighted about any aspect of the Bill—not my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security, not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, and certainly not myself, those of us dealing with the two main contentious issues. We


are not pleased and delighted that we have to produce these proposals, but we judge them necessary in the present situation.
Liberal Members were in the forefront of the campaign to bring about devaluation, and I think that the decision to devalue had a marked measure of support on these benches from a great many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate so far. I do not know of anybody in the country who believes that the decision to devalue could be taken in isolation from any other measures such as we are having to put before the country. Anybody who believed that we did not have to back devaluation up by really tough and earnest measures, both as announced in the House and those that will be announced in the forthcoming Budget, and that we could make the decision in isolation from all these other factors would certainly be entitled to be accused of living in cloud cuckoo land.
The argument is about what sort of decisions have to be taken to back up devaluation, and it is in the context of that that we have to consider these questions. All the early indications are that because of the decision to devalue productivity is improving, and that the unemployment figures, even at this time of the year, show a welcome sign of declining. All must be delighted to hear of the successful indications there. But there has to be a firm resolve to make devaluation work even if it involves us in these very unpleasant measures. If the Government departed from the firmness and resolve that will be necessary they would be guilty of selling the country short. Those of us on this side of the House who are pledged to get the economy right and to ensure that devaluation works are entitled to say that our measures should be seen within this context.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. Friend—

Mr. Howell: Perhaps my hon. Friend will not interrupt. I have sat here a long time, and I know that the House wants to divide. at an appropriate moment.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: There is plenty of time—

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman may have plenty of time, but there is a great deal to be said, and I think I am en

titled to try to deploy the arguments of the Government since the main burden of those who were here during the night and throughout the morning has been that they were not satisfied that we had supplied enough arguments.

Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could we have some elucidation about when the debate has to end? I understood we could go to two o'clock. I am not sure why the Minister feels he is running out of time.

Mr. Howell: I am trying to apply a serious argument and I will do so if I may be allowed to do it in my own way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot bring the debate to an end. It can be done only by the application of the Standing Order.

Mr. Howell: I am trying to pay hon. Members the compliment of giving them a reasoned answer to the case that has been put up. I do not ask them to accept what I am saying, though I hope it will have some effect on them but I hope they will listen and realise that I am trying to meet the arguments put forward as well as I am able.
I was saying that it is in the light of this thinking that the two main measures on which I want to concentrate and which I know concern my hon. Friends have to be taken. There is the question of the social services, which is in part a question of the National Insurance Fund and, therefore, can be said to be outside questions of devaluation. I am informed that this is correct. My right hon. Friend dealt at some measure last night with this aspect of the situation. I emphasise what my right hon. Friend said last night about wage-related benefits, which I think was a matter of major importance. All of us in this House, and certainly in the Labour Party are pledged to a scheme of wage-related benefits. I again emphasise what my right hon. Friend said last night, that it is the intention of the Government to introduce into Parliament this year the proposals for such a scheme which we believe can be successfully launched. That I think will in a sense mitigate, or at any rate get into perspective, the emergency proposals, which I concede they have to be, in respect of the National Insurance part of these proposals, and the poll tax which we, as


well as many other hon. Members, find objectionable in principle and which we are pledged to eleminate at the earliest possible moment.
I turn to Clause 3, which deals with school milk. I say at the start, having regard to the general overall strategy which I have been talking about—about a retrenchment in public expenditure—that this was a moment in time when education Ministers, as other social Ministers, whatever we should like to have done, had to make our contribution. As my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, the contribution of education, proportionately from the percentage point of view, is less than that of many of the other social services. I say this, however, having spent many anxious nights myself looking at what contribution education could make in these circumstances. I believe that if any of my hon. Friends or any other hon. Member started with the proposition with which we had to start, that education had to make a contribution, inevitably in the end their choice would have been the same as ours. I understand my hon. Friends well enough to know that they would have wanted to do what we wished to do, and that was at all costs to preserve the main fabric of the education service and make as little inroad into that fabric as we could. In keeping with that, our decision, for example, to postpone the school leaving age, however undersirable and regrettable, allowed us not to interfere with anything that was happening in education at this moment. The postponement was undesirable, but it preserved the main fabric of the education service.
It was in the light of that sort of thinking that, in order to achieve the target which we had set ourselves or had been set for us or had been jointly agreed upon, we turned our attention to the question of school milk in secondary schools. I want, therefore, to deal with this for a moment.
It was in a sense a natural place to start because this is the one area of the service where people were opting out of their own volition. The demand for or take up of free school milk in the secondary schools was going down considerably.

An Hon. Member: Where?

Mr. Howell: Over the country as a whole. In fact, there has been rather a dramatic drop since 1964—a drop from an average of over 65 per cent. to about 58 per cent. in only three years. That drop in take up is accelerating.
It is our opinion, too, that those figures in some measure hide the real situation, because in addition to the 42 per cent. who we know do not take milk, there are large numbers of children who each drink two or three bottles of milk. That is not statistically ascertainable. I cannot give the House any facts on the matter, but the general picture is that this is a service which appears to the children in secondary schools themselves to be less and less relevant.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way? This is a very important point.

Mr. Howell: I am sorry, but I will not give way. I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I have a lot to get through before one o'clock.
The reasons for this are that children in secondary schools and in education generally are exercising their choice. Indeed, I believe that that is what education is all about—to enable people to exercise choice in their own lives. There has been a tremendous movement into these schools, especially the new comprehensive schools and the very large schools, of vending machines by means of which a large number of children can exercise their right to buy a cup of coffee, a cup of tea, and, unfortunately we may think, a bottle of Coca-Cola. There has been a considerable movement in the schools in that direction. One must pay regard to that. My hon. Friends will make a sad mistake if they do not regard the failure of take-up as a significant movement in the school welfare service.
Much has been said about nutritional advice. My right hon. Friend dealt with that last night and has been attacked about it today. I want to say as clearly and emphatically as I can that there is no question at all of the Government acting in isolation from the best advice that they could get. But my hon. Friends are quite right: the fact is that we could not get any firm and emphatic advice upon the matter. A degree of research is going on. It will take a long time.


In order to carry out research into the dietetic effects on children, we have to have regard not only to school milk but also to the rest of the balanced diet which children have these days. To measure the effects of taking away this or that part of the diet will take many years. That is the view of our advisers, and all that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday was that, at the end of the day, having taken the best advice they could, the Government had to make their own judgment. We say, frankly, that this is a question of judgment. We believe that we are right to put the emphasis in other sectors.

Mr. Alison: Mr. Alison rose—

Mr. Howell: No. I will not give way.

Mr. Alison: It is a small point.

Mr. Howell: It may be a small point but it will take a lot of time. The smaller the point—it works out in the House in inverse ratio—the more time is needed to deal with it.
We were not acting professionally in isolation. We had a great deal of professional advice which had caused us to send this issue, in the first place, to the Committee on Nutritional Standards, because all sorts of conferences, to which I know the House would pay proper respect, had been declaring themselves on the subject of secondary school milk. The B.M.A., for example, had decided the question by an overwhelming majority. The National Association of Head Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters—[HON. MEMBERS: "They have no teeth."] Hon. Members may think what they like about them, but the Government have to have regard to their views. Although the N.U.T., which my hon. Friends might perhaps rind a more respectable organisation, have discussed the subject at some length at their congresses, they have never included it in a resolution. But it is, I think, fair to say that they do not support these Measures.
The fact is that there was, and still is, a large area of professional support for this decision. As my right hon. Friend said last night, there were no representations at all from the local authority associations or any of the professional bodies following immediately upon the decision which we have announced.
I agree with my hon. Friends that the area of family poverty in this country is a matter of considerable concern to us all. The House knows that in the last twelve months the Government have mounted a major campaign in this respect. I am happy to say that we have had a very successful campaign indeed. The very fact of our talking about the number of children not taking up their free school meals, backed up by comment in the Press, produced another 80,000 cases in the last twelve months. That was the result of the mere fact of our talking about it.
But we decided to go further. We decided not to have a Press or television campaign, but my right hon. Friend drafted a letter, in very simple English indeed, which every child in the country received. I know that my hon. Friends will understand when I say that there were serious doubts expressed to the Government in some quarters whether that campaign ought to have been carried out, bearing in mind the amount of administrative work and the fact that some local authority associations said that it was their job and not ours. Nevertheless, we were concerned about the shattering effect of the Ministry of Social Security's report on poverty in the family, and on getting through to every home. I am able to tell the House, on the assessment of the first returns that we have received that there has been an increase in uptake of free school meals—and these are for the families of the very low wage earners. The increases are 32· 8 per cent. in English counties, 21· 9 per cent. in English county boroughs and 30· 2 per cent. in London boroughs, an overall increase of 26· 3 per cent. My hon. Friends will be glad to know that another 100,000 cases have been found since November. If we add those 100,000 cases which we have now found to the previous 80,000 cases which we found just by talking about it, we have discovered 180,000 school children in the country who are now getting free school meals for the first time. These are children of low wage-earners. That is an appreciable success story which I can give the House. It is a long, long way, it is true, from the 250,000 children we set out to find, but I can assure hon. Members that we shall keep this matter under constant attention.

Mr. Heffer: The Government should not have followed it up with a cut in school milk.

Mr. Howell: I am coming to that point. The school meal is designed for a child of eleven to provide a calorie intake of 800 calories. That is towards his balanced diet. That is a much better way of dealing with the matter, in the Government's view, than relying solely on school milk, important as it is, in other sectors, particularly in primary schools. When we discuss this, I think that I am entitled to ask the House to have regard to all the other supporting factors which are part of the Government's thinking. Family allowances are being raised. There is the maintenance of the welfare milk system and the continuation of free milk in primary schools. There is the big campaign on school meals which I have mentioned. Apart from free school meals, there is the school meal service generally. Even when there is an increase in price this year, it will still mean a subsidy of 1s. 1d. per day for every child taking school meals in this country.
There are two points which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash asked me. I will very briefly deal with them. He asked about middle schools. Children in middle schools will get free milk until the age of eleven, and not afterwards. Secondly, the real savings are £ 5¼ million this year, and they will be £ 5¾ million when the school leaving age is raised. All the saving goes to local authorities this year, and next year it will be shared

fifty-fifty between the taxpayer and the ratepayer.

Finally, I must refer to the attitude of Her Majesty's Opposition on this Bill. There has not been a moment during the Second Reading, the Committee Stage, or the Third Reading of this Bill when there were not more Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench than the entire number of the Conservative Party in the House. That is why I think that I am entitled to draw attention to the words of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) who said about these measures, "This is a gigantic hoax." Later he referred to "phantom cuts".

That is not what my hon. Friends thought and that is not what the Opposition thought when they had a full-day debate on education recently. The right hon. Gentleman's deafening contribution was not made from the Opposition benches. It was made from the benches of Mitcham, where he made that speech. It is a synthetic indignation and a synthetic leadership, and it is a synthetic campaign which they are trying to give to the country. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support us today, whatever misgivings they may have about individual measures, in the knowledge that these are part of the strategy in the Government's campaign to make devaluation work and to have an all-out attack upon the evils of family poverty wherever it can be found.

Question put,That the Bill be now read the Third Time:—

The House divided:Ayes 178, Noes 9.

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[1.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Concannon, J. D.
Foley, Maurice


Aldritt, Walter
Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John


Anderson, Donald
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Freeson, Reginald


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dalyell, Tarn
Gardner, Tony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Garrett, W. E.


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Courlay, Harry


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Edmund
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dempsey, James
Hamling, William



Dewar, Donald
Hannan, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Harper, Joseph


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dobson, Ray
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brown,Bob(N 'c' tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Doig, Peter
Haseldine, Norman


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Henig, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hilton, W. S.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, John
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Cant, R. B.
Ennals, David
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Coe, Denis
Finch, Harold
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)




Hoy, James
Mapp, Charles
Roebuck, Roy


Huckfield, Leslie
Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mellish, Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Molloy, William
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Moonman, Eric
Skeffington, Arthur


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)
Morgan, Elystan(Cardiganshire)
Small, William


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Snow, Julian


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Murray, Albert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stonehouse, John


Judd, Frank
Neal, Harold
Swingler, Stephen


Kelley, Richard
Oakes, Gordon
Taverne, Dick


Lawson, George
O'Malley, Brian
Thornton, Ernest


Leadbitter, Ted
Oswald, Thomas
Tinn, James


Ledger, Ron
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Varley, Eric G.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman
Wallace, George


Loughlin, Charles
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wellbeloved, James


McBride, Neil
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Whitlock, William


MacColl, James
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilkins, W. A.


MacDermot, Niall
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Macdonald, A. H.
Randall, Harry
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mackie, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Maclennan, Robert
Richard, Ivor
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)



MacPherson, Malcolm
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marion, Peter (Preston, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
r. Ioan L. Evans and


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
r. J. McCann.


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)





NOES


Bessell, Peter
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp; Crom'ty)



Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mr. Eric Lubbock and


Hooson, Emlyn
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Mr. John Pardoe.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Bill accordingly read the Third Time, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Business having been concluded,SPEAKERadjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Order.


Adjourned at ten minutes past One o'clock p.m.

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

>[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Rhodesian Stocks

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps are being taken to service Rhodesian stocks, being trustee securities, so as to discharge debt obligations to British holders
(2) whether he is aware that British holders of Rhodesian stock are being deprived of money due to them owing to sanctions against Rhodesia; and whether he will direct the Bank of England to accede to the request of the Rhodesian Bondholders' Action Group for a list of bondholders in order that they may make constitutional representations and otherwise endeavour to safeguard their interests.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I cannot accept any obligation for the liabilities of the Rhodesian Government; it is the illegal regime in Rhodesia who are responsible for the default on these stocks. I do not consider that a direction to the Bank of England would be justified.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that failure to service these stocks is causing grave hardship to individuals and to institutions, including hospital pension funds and charities hav-

ing no part in the Government's quarrel with Rhodesia? Will he reconsider his disappointing reply and enable these people to make their representations and provide them with the information they require?

Mr. Lever: I have every sympathy for the holders of these stocks who, through no fault of their own in most cases, suffer the default, but this default is a default not of Her Majesty's Government, but of the illegal Rhodesian régime.

Sir R. Cary: At the time of U.D.I., was not a special revenue board appointed to deal with the matters contained in this Question? Was not a revenue reserve board appointed to deal with these special matters and on the recommendation of such a board the Government would allow to flow freely these payments to those entitled to them?

Mr. Lever: No, Sir. The appointments made by Order to the Rhodesian Reserve Board were not related to these stocks.

Personal Savings and Disposable Income

Mr. Blaker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the proportion between personal savings and personal disposable income in 1964, 1965, 1966 and the first nine months of 1967, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): The figures are as follows: 1964 7·8 per cent., 1965 7·7 per cent., 1966 7·2 per cent., and the first nine months of 1967 6·8 per cent. seasonally adjusted.

Mr. Blaker: Is that not a rather depressing declining trend? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Labour Government would do something to encourage savings they might not have to put up taxes so much? Will he do something about this?

Mr. Diamond: We accept that there is a great need to encourage savings. The best way we can have of encouraging savings is to help to lay the foundations for a permanent strengthening in the balance of payments.

Civil Service

Mr. Blaker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the Government's recent decision to hold the size of the Civil Service at its present level will mean that 11,000 people who were to be recruited into the Civil Service in order to carry out existing Government policies will not be so recruited, what steps are being taken to limit the workload of the Civil Service accordingly.

Mr. Harold Lever: Some of the measures taken to cut Government expenditure, particularly on defence and civil defence, will reduce the workload on the Civil Service. In addition, Departments are examining other ways of saving work such as the elimination of less essential activities and spreading it over a longer period.

Mr. Blaker: Does not the Financial Secretary agree that the main cause of the increasing numbers in the Civil Service is Government policy? If the Government are to prune the numbers of civil servants how can they avoid a greater workload falling on the Civil Service if they will not abandon their policies both of the past and in the pipeline?

Mr. Lever: I agree that in general the size of the Civil Service will relate to Government policies, and adjustments have been made in Government policies to achieve some stability in the level of Civil Service employment.

Mr. Strauss: Can my hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will not carry out the policy of keeping down the number of civil servants by dismissing groups of civil servants such as office cleaners in Whitehall and employing in their place contractors to do the same work with the same number of people?

Mr. Lever: My right hon. Friend is mistaken if he supposes that that is the sole consequence of the measures taken in relation to office cleaners. A very considerable saving in cost, amounting to something like one-third of the overall total cost of cleaning, results from the measures taken, although I have a great deal of sympathy with the poetic expressions of the ladies affected.

The Treasury (Economic Information)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to modernise his Department and to enable it to produce up-to-date information on which to base decisions to reshape the economy.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I attach the greatest importance to a continued improvement of the statistical basis for policy decisions. But I would remind my hon. Friend that the Treasury is responsible for the interpretation and use of economic information rather than for its collection.

Mrs. Short: In view of that, does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be rather better for the Government and the nation as a whole if those who collect. sift and prepare information for him and for other Departments had a less pro-Establishment background and more sympathy with the Government and its aims and objects?

Mr. Jenkins: As I said, I am constantly anxious to see an improvement, but I am not aware that any difficulties in either the collection or interpretation of statistics arise from the outlook and background of those who collect and interpret them.

Net Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to keep the net borrowing requirement within the figure raised net by market transactions in 1968– 69.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement.

Mr. Ridley: Would not the Chancellor agree that if he could borrow all of the borrowing requirement he could reduce taxation by £ 800 million or £ 900 million? Has he not, therefore, to take very seriously means of making people save, such as abolishing the unearned income distinction and punitive taxes on investment income?

Mr. Jenkins: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I take very seriously a great number of considerations in framing my Budget Statement, but I would not


necessarily accept that all the hon. Gentleman's conclusions follow from his premises.

Mr. Cant: Will my right hon. Friend accept, at any rate for the future, that unless he limits his net borrowing requirement to real savings this will have an inflationary tendency within the economy which will have a serious effect on the effectiveness of monetary policy, and that that is a factor which may lead him to consider reintroducing a statutory incomes policy?

Mr. Jenkins: I am certainly aware of some of the dangers to which my hon. Friend refers, and I take them fully into account.

Notes and Coin (Circulation)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in notes and coin in circulation and in the net indebtedness to the Bank of England Banking Department over the last 10 years, taken together; and what have been the net receipts from market transactions over the same period.

Mr. Harold Lever: For the period of 9½ years between the beginning of the financial year 1958–59 and the end of the second quarter of 1967–68 the first two figures are £ 1,050 million and £ 237 million. Net receipts from market transactions, if interpreted as the total net increase in Government marketable debt outstanding, amounted to £ 600 million over the same period.

Mr. Ridley: Did not the Answer illustrate what I said in my supplementary question to Question No. 6, that the Government have printed twice as much as they have borrowed in the past 10 years? Is it not time that that trend was reversed?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman draws inferences from the figures which they do not support. The amount of new money printed simply reflects the public's appetite for cash to keep in its tills and pockets.

Mr. Ogden: Is my hon. Friend aware that whilst he has been taking care of the £ there appears to be a serious shortage of shillings? While two tanners make a bob, one cannot put two sixpences in

coin machines made to take shillings. Will he do something about that?

Mr. Lever: I shall certainly take account of what my hon. Friend said.

Tax Measures (Professional Advisers)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence for professional advisers, deliberately and through negligence, to misinform their clients on the effects of taxation and other measures.

Mr. Diamond: Every attempt is made by way of publicity to ensure that professional advisers get correct information about tax measures. I am not responsible for the advice they ultimately give.

Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in a number of cases close companies are being advised that shortfall tax is payable to the full and they cannot retain for development purposes? Is it not the case that the regulations provide for tax-free retention for development purposes? Will my right hon. Friend make that widely known?

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this to my attention. I have no information of cases where that kind of misinformation has been given. My hon. Friend is quite right in saying, as has been explained here many times, that the needs of the business, both current and future, must be taken fully into account in determining the shortfall.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if such advice, to use the words of the Question, was given deliberately and negligently it would be an offence anyway without further legislation?

Mr. Diamond: "Deliberately and negligently" is a curious concept, if one looks at the words very carefully. If the advice is given negligently, I should imagine that the client has a claim for damages. If it were given deliberately and negligently, I cannot think what goes on in the adviser's mind.

Spirits Duty

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a system to allow the duty on spirits


to be paid 30 days after being released from bond, to enable the whisky industry to use the money, at present tied up in sustaining the duty over this period, in further procuration of exports.

Mr. Harold Lever: This is a budgetary matter and I cannot comment now.

Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister realise that such a change would remove a burdensome but temporary charge on the whisky industry and free funds for the important work of export promotion?

Mr. Lever: My right hon. Friend has heard the hon. Gentleman's comment and no doubt he will take it into account.

Economic Forecasts

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the main particulars of the Government's economic forecasts to the end of 1969 before he makes his Budget statement.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make public the statistical content of the economic forecast on which he will be basing the Budget.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet reached a decision on the possibility of publishing the short-term economic forecasts to the end of 1969 of his Department before the Budget.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake to publish the short run forecasts of the United Kingdom economy on which his Budget will be based.

Mr. Grant: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now decided whether to publish as White Papers in advance of Budget Day the full official pre-Budget forecasts of national income and expenditure, and to publish on Budget Day itself the revised official forecasts taking account of the estimated effects of Budget measures.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am still considering whether, and if so when and how, to publish these forecasts.

Mr. Campbell: Is the Chancellor aware that consideration of his Budget proposals

is likely to be more fruitful if he will also publish the Government's short-term assumptions, whether or not they later prove to be accurate?

Mr. Jenkins: As I indicated, both in answer to a Questiton five weeks ago and today, I am considering the matter. It is a fairly serious matter, and I must point out that no previous Chancellor on either side has published such a forecast.

Mr. Sheldon: Whilst I appreciate the increase in information which my right hon. Friend is making generally available, may I ask him whether he would accept that the information can be of value not only in improving general understanding of our economic problems, but also, perhaps, improving the forecasts themselves?

Mr. Jenkins: I shall take that point into account. I am not exactly sure that I follow the logic of the last half of my hon. Friend's question. Like everyone else, I should like to see the accuracy of all forecasts improved. It is important that the House should realise, as I am sure that it does, that there is no magic in forecasts and no certainty that the results will be what is forecast.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the right hon. Gentleman has never been Chancellor before, why not make a new departure? Since the I.M.F. directors have presumably seen the forecasts, should not the British people, who have a prior right, also see them?

Mr. Jenkins: I am all in favour of making new departures provided I think that they are in sensible directions, and I am considering the matter. The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question probably arises more on a later Question.

Mr. Higgins: Is the Chancellor aware that the United States and many European Governments publish official forecasts and that the effect has been very beneficial, whereas the Government did not do so last year, and the effect was horribly disastrous?

Mr. Jenkins: I could think of some other years in which Governments did not publish the forecasts and in which the results might well have been described as disastrous.

Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his Department is more selective and perhaps a little more intelligent in


the manner and timing of its publications on economic affairs? Is he aware that the way in which the Vote on Account was published last week caused considerable embarrassment to sterling as well as providing material for a somewhat foolish speech by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not responsible for what use the Leader of the Opposition chooses to make of matters in making foolish speeches. It was not the publication of the Vote on Account, which followed a long-established pattern, but the interpretation which some people chose to put on it. I think falsely, which caused the difficulty.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Hooley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special studies are being made by his Department of the effect of an 8 per cent. Bank Rate on local government finances.

Mr. Diamond: The effect of the current level of interest rates on local government finance is kept under review in the normal course of Government business.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to extend over the whole of local government finance the excellent principle now introduced into the housing subsidy system of keeping the effective borrowing rate not higher than 4 per cent. for local government services?

Mr. Diamond: I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the position concerning housing subsidies, but to extend that principle is an entirely different question.

Mr. Hordern: What is the point of keeping Bank Rate at 8 per cent. in any case? It is not bringing in enough money from abroad, and the clearing banks are limited in their level of advances.

Mr. Diamond: I agree that a high Bank Rate is not desirable in itself, but the present Bank Rate is a necessary part of the measures the Government are taking to make devaluation work.

Inland Revenue (Forms)

Mr. Costain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many persons were employed by the

Inland Revenue in devising, producing and distributing forms on 31st January, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968;
(2) how many forms were in use by the Inland Revenue at 31st January 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968.

Mr. Harold Lever: On the respective dates, 997, 1,070, 1,133 and 1,183 Inland Revenue forms were in public use including forms—other than stockletters—which convey information. 43 Inland Revenue officials are now solely employed in devising, producing and distributing forms but the information for earlier years is not available.

Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the amount of work this entails for industry? Is this the way to modernise the taxation system?

Mr. Lever: We are always trying to simplify not only the forms but the taxation system they seek to serve. We have had some success and we will continue the process.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate how expensive it is to a business to have to use staff on the unproductive work of filling in and returning these forms?

Mr. Lever: Even if we produced a taxation system which was perfection itself, there would still be millions of forms of various sizes and kinds to be delivered to taxpayers and it would still take a certain expenditure of time in order to fill them in.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Lane: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total loss or profit, respectively, of the nationalised coal, gas, electricity and railway industries to the latest available date.

Mr. Diamond: The aggregates of the annual surpluses and deficits on the revenue accounts of these industries at the end of their latest complete financial years, after meeting interest charges, were as follows:

>Coal Industry—Net deficit of £ 115 million.

Gas Industry—Net surplus of £ 73 million.

Electricity Industry—Net surplus of £ 492 million.

Railways:

Under British Transport Commission—Net deficit of £ 809 million.

Under British Railways Board (since 1963)

—Net deficit of £ 522 million.

Mr. Lane: In any Ministerial discussions about aluminium smelters, will the right hon. Gentleman urge his colleagues to avoid any arrangement which will add to the National Coal Board's deficit, in accordance with the clear assurance which the Prime Minister gave the House on 14th November?

Mr. Diamond: I will take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Tinn: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the deficits shown by the nationalised industries principally arise from transport and that this constitutes another strong argument for the House supporting the Transport Bill?

Ministers (Overseas Visits)

Mr. Lane: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost to public funds in 1967 of overseas visits by members of the Government, including staff and other persons accompanying them.

Mr. Harold Lever: This information could only be collected at disproportionate expense.

Mr. Lane: Can the hon. Gentleman at least confirm that there will be cuts in this area of Government expenditure as in other areas during the next two years?

Mr. Lever: I assure the hon. Gentleman that care and judgment will be exercised to produce the maximum economy in this field as in others of Government expenditure.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Compensation Payments)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his consultations with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are now completed in regard to taxation treatment of compensation paid for foot-and-mouth disease; and whether he will now give an assurance that all such compensation will be assessed free of liability to Income Tax, Surtax, Corporation Tax and capital gains duty.

Mr. Dance: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet reached a decision as to whether compensation

paid to farmers who have suffered during the current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease will be subject to tax or not.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Not yet.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind—sitting comfortably in Stechford, he may not understand—the extraordinary difficulties the farmers in Worcestershire afflicted by foot-and-mouth disease are having with their finances? As this is my third Parliamentary Question on this subject since December, will the right hon. Gentleman stop the practice of taking advantage of the misfortunes of these afflicted farmers?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not taking advantage at all. I am anxious that a statement shall be made, either by the Treasury or by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, as soon as possible. The point at issue is that justice should be done to the farmers without doing it in such a way that it undermines the very principles on which the Inland Revenue has operated and must operate in future.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Chancellor realise how important it is that this issue should be resolved as soon as possible? Is he aware that hardship is being caused to several farmers whose financial years have closed and whose farms suffered the disease in the early stages of the outbreak? Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not need to penalise farmers who, through no fault of their own, have had their stock destroyed and who wish to restart but do not want to suffer damage through taxation in the meantime?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of all these points. Negotiations are going on, and when negotiations are proceeding it is not usually one side or the other which is responsible for their speed.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Does the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) mean that he concedes the very important principle involved and is merely looking for ways to implement it?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. While negotiations are proceeding, it would be wrong for me to say anything, or for the right


hon. Gentleman to place any interpretation upon them which would not be justified by my remarks, which would prejudice those negotiations.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of additional civil servants required on the basis that revenue now collected under Purchase Tax is raised from a tax on value added; what would be the additional cost of collection; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Diamond: The extent of the requirement for extra staff would depend on the form and coverage of the new taxation.

Mr. Morris: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this would not only be a very bad tax for the consumer but, at least in present circumstances and because of the increased administrative burden, a mad tax for this country?

Mr. Diamond: These are adjectives which seem somewhat out of keeping with my hon. Friend's normally temperate approach.

Mr. Lubbock: When the right hon. Gentleman comes to assess the savings or otherwise in the number of civil servants, will he take into account the fact that a value added tax would enable us to abolish the Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Diamond: It does not follow that what one does about one tax necessarily leads to ability to deal with another.

Confederation of British Industry (Representations)

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the communication, entitled "The Budget 1968", which he has received from the Confederation of British Industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hiley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has received from the Confederation of British Industry in relation to his forthcoming Budget Statement; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I received representations from the C.B.I. about the Budget, which the C.B.I. has since made public. At my invitation representatives of the C.B.I. had a meeting with me last week at which they elaborated on their representations. I told them that I would bear their suggestions in mind when framing my Budget proposals.

Mr. Morris: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, while the C.B.I. is asking for reductions in Surtax and for a wage freeze, it is not for that organisation to be advocating an increase in the burden of indirect taxation? Will he make it clear, before the meeting of trade union executives at Croydon tomorrow, that he utterly rejects the advice of the C.B.I.?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I have no intention at this stage or any other before 19th March of indicating that I am either accepting or rejecting advice from the many sources from which it comes to me and from the many people whom I have told that I am bearing their advice in mind.

Mr. Hiley: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the impact of the C.B.I.'s suggestions on the ability of the nation to export? Is it not better to put a tax on spenders than a tax on those who save?

Mr. Jenkins: I will consider all these points.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, if the advice freely tendered by the C.B.I. were accepted by him, it would mean complete surrender to the Conservative position? Although he cannot at this stage give an undertaking about this, will he nevertheless make certain that he resists this advice very strongly? Let us hope that on Budget day we shall know the answer.

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend will know that today I am in a mood to consider everything and agree to nothing.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Alison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the extent to which the average annual rise in public expenditure in the period 1967–68 to 1969–70, as specified in paragraph 55 of Command Paper No. 3515, diverges from the average annual rise needed to meet the National Plan target for public expenditure.

Mr. Diamond: The National Plan did not give figures for public expenditure in 1967–68 but for 1964–65 and 1969–70. These showed an average annual rise of 4· 25 per cent. Our present estimated increase over the same period is 4· 15 per cent., or 0· 1 per cent. lower.

Mr. Alison: Why is it that although exports, investment, employment and personal consumption have all slumped under the Socialists, public expenditure keeps rising and the National Plan target for it is a sacred cow?

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman's conclusion is only consistent with every one of his allegations being nonsense.

Mr. Tinn: What proportion of this increased public expenditure arises from the high rate of spending on education, the social services and so on?

Mr. Diamond: I cannot give a breakdown offhand, but I will send my hon. Friend any figures he wants. I would also draw his attention to Cmnd. Paper 3515 which sets out the figures.

Personal Consumption

Mr. Alison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what average annual percentage figure he estimates that consumers' expenditure will rise in the period 1967–68 to 1969–70.

Mr. Willey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the rise in personal consumption in 1969.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: For a more precise estimate, the hon. and right hon. Members must await my Budget Statement, but I have already made it clear, both in this House and outside, that there will have to be very severe restraint on personal consumption over the period to which the hon. Members refer.

Mr. Alison: Can the Chancellor tell us why, since personal consumption over the decade, up to the advent of the present Government, increased at the rate of 3 per cent. per year we should now be expected to don our hair shirts because his party has come into power?

Mr. Jenkins: I am interested that the hon. Member should take a different view of the present situation than almost every commentator who normally supports the party which I believe he supports. It is not the case that consumption has increased steadily over the decade to which he referred, and it may be because it increased too fast at the end of the decade that we are finding ourselves in our present difficulties.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are concerned that the restriction of consumption measures about which he is talking will hit the working people, and the lower-paid workers, as a result of possible increases in indirect taxation? Is he aware that we would be very much opposed to this?

Mr. Jenkins: That again falls within the scope of my answer to a supplementary question, arising on the previous Question. I will consider this, like other representations.

Mr. Higgins: Since the Chancellor has already to some extent anticipated his Budget Statement by saying that he expects a 4 per cent. increase in G.N.P. there must be implicit in this figure a rate of increase in consumption. What is it?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member must realise that if one gives some general estimate, as I endeavoured to do in order to help the House and the country, this does not mean that one must be asked to provide a running commentary on exactly what one's estimates are from week to week. At this stage the hon. Member must await what I have to say in my Budget Statement.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Marten: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of payments position in the second half of this year.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I cannot add to the statement in the Letter of Intent, which


my predecessor sent to the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund on 23rd November and which I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 30th November.—[Vol. 755, c. 348– 351.]

Mr. Marten: Has the Chancellor seen the Industrial Trend Survey recently published by the C.B.I., in which it appeared that only 15 per cent. of the firms interviewed estimated that they would increase the value of their sterling exports by 16 per cent.? That is not good enough to bring us up to the £ 200 million mentioned in the I.M.F. letter. Has he any comments?

Mr. Jenkins: I have seen and studied this carefully, together with other pieces of information becoming available. I do not at the moment see any reason to take a pessimistic view about our export prospects.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would the Chancellor say by approximately how much in this period the favourable balance would. have increased if there were no overseas military spendings?

Mr. Jenkins: I cannot offhand give an answer, and any answer would be purely hypothetical because, as my hon. Friend knows, there are no changes which we could make at present which would not have the effect of increasing overseas military spending in the period to which this refers.

Fiduciary Issue

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase in the fiduciary issue Her Majesty's Government propose to make in 1968, 1969 and 1970.

Mr. Harold Lever: The size of the fiduciary issue will continue to be determined by public demand for notes.

Mr. Lloyd: That statement of the Financial Secretary's intentions is hardly informative. May I ask him whether he can tell the House what proposals he has for controlling money supplies since, if the Government had specific proposals, there need not be this vast bureaucratic attempt to control prices and incomes indirectly? It would largely be unnecessary.

Mr. Lever: The Question related to the fiduciary issue, which is only a small fraction of the money supplied. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question would not only go wide of the original Question, but would take up a considerable time of the House.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this increase in the fiduciary issue and the increase in Treasury Bills that is going on by means of the self-financing of the Government is leading to inflation and is drawing imports from abroad, damaging the economy?

Mr. Lever: The increase in the fiduciary issue merely represents the amount of cash that the public desires to have in its pockets and tills. To reduce the amount of cash would do nothing whatever, either to reduce the total money supply, or the inflationary pressure in our economy. All that would result would be inconvenience to our people, and another stale argument would be removed from members of the Opposition.

Business Efficiency (Bonus Awards)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions have been given to the Inland Revenue regarding tax payable on bonus awards for suggestions to improve efficiency in individual business firms.

Mr. Diamond: Under a long-standing practice an award made to an employee for a useful suggestion made under an employer's suggestion scheme is not regarded as taxable if the amount is reasonable and it is not part of the regular duties of the employee to put forward such suggestions.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister bear in mind that the instructions which he has outlined are vague and fluctuating? Would he also bear in mind, if he is thinking of changing them, that it is unwise to impose penal taxation on suggestions for improving efficiency and output in industry?

Mr. Diamond: There is no question of any penal taxation. The instructions are not vague, they are clear; and they are not varying, they are permanent. They


are clearly understood by all concerned and draw a clear distinction between payments which are made in the ordinary course of duty and payments made outside the ordinary course of duty.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would it not be right that this tax should be borne by the industrialists who benefit from the suggestions made?

Mr. Diamond: If industries benefit, as I hope they do, their production increases, their sales increase, their profit increases and so their taxation increases.

Money Supply and Gross Domestic Product

Mr. Turton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase of the total money supply in each of the three years ending on 30th September in 1965, 1966 and 1967, and the percentage growth of the gross domestic product at constant prices in the same three periods.

Mr. Harold Lever: The increases in the money supply in the three years were respectively 6·4 per cent., 6·2 per cent. and 8·0 per cent., and the increases in the gross domestic product at constant prices were 3·1 per cent., 1·7 per cent. and 1·6 per cent.

Mr. Turton: Is it not clear from this that as was pointed out in "The Programme of National Recovery," this is the root cause of our troubles, rather more than wage-cost inflation? What steps are the Government taking to correct this damaging position, when money supply increases 8 per cent. and the total gross domestic product is increased 1· 6 per cent.?

Mr. Lever: The Government are taking effective steps to control overall money supply by controls on bank lending, where, as hon. Members are aware, a ceiling has been imposed, except for exports, and by a firm curb on net Government borrowing too.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that we live in a cheque economy, and that the extent of the note issue is entirely irrelevant?

Mr. Lever: I was dealing with the money supply. We have passed from the irrelevancies of the note issue to the money supply itself, which of course in-

eludes bank balances and the cheques which make those bank balances mobile. My hon. and learned Friend's question would have been very useful at an earlier point in our proceedings.

Income Tax

Mr. Barnes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate he has made of the earliest date at which it would be possible for the Inland Revenue to operate a system of income tax in reverse.

Mr. Diamond: I have nothing to acid to the reply which I gave on 9th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 9th February, 1968.—[Vol. 758, c.242.]

Mr. Barnes: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this could be a very acceptable and civilised form of selectivity? Must not the next stage be for someone to work out how far it is practicable? Will he now give instructions for this to be done?

Mr. Diamond: As I have told my hon. Friend, schemes of this kind are kept under review by the Departments concerned.

Indirect Taxation

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to raise various forms of indirect taxation.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate this, but would the Chancellor try to resist the Tory and C.B.I. pressure to raise indirect taxation, which hits working-class and lower middle-class people most of all? Would he not agree that any raising of indirect taxation will certainly hit people trying to live on small fixed incomes?

Mr. Jenkins: I am afraid that the answer to that Question must also be embraced within the terms of the Answer that I gave earlier.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If the Chancellor is to increase indirect taxation will he at least ensure that it is on luxuries, and not on essentials, which will hit the poorest people in our community hardest of all?

Mr. Jenkins: Again I take note of what the hon. Member says.

Purchase Tax (Charity Christmas Cards)

Mr. Allason: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum has been received in Purchase Tax on charity Christmas cards in the current financial year.

Mr. Harold Lever: This information is not available, since receipts of Purchase Tax on charity Christmas cards are not separately recorded.

Mr. Allason: Would the Minister agree that the total amount of tax on Christmas cards represents about £ 2 million, so that the sum raised from charity Christmas cards cannot be large from the Exchequer point of view but is really considerable from the point of view of the charity? Would he take into account the sensible and practical proposals put forward last year, which would relieve these charities of this Purchase Tax?

Mr. Lever: All proposals, especially sensible and practical proposals, are taken into account, but to date no one has thought it right to make the discrimination in favour of charity Christmas cards that the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Dunn: Would my hon. Friend take note of the feeling on this matter in the House, and perhaps in the coming year carry out an exercise to find out exactly what sum is involved? Does he appreciate that this would alleviate a great deal of concern felt on both sides of the Chamber.

Mr. Lever: The amount of duty received from other Christmas cards would alter if we were to exempt charity Christmas cards, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

International Monetary Fund (Staff Mission)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the first regular inspection of the British economy by representatives of the International Monetary Fund since devaluation.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he proposes with the International Monetary Fund; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: In accordance with the terms of the Letter of Intent sent to the Fund by my predecessor last November, consultations with an I.M.F. Staff Mission have been taking place in London since last Wednesday. The talks are confidential. There have been full and helpful discussions on the economic position generally and the prospects.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not utterly outrageous that foreigners should be given detailed information, presumably in breach of the Official Secrets Act, which is denied to this House? Would the Chancellor at least tell us whether it is true that our international creditors believe that he is wildly over-optimistic in his forecasts of sustainable growth this year and the level of Government spending?

Mr. Jenkins: I have always believed the hon. Gentleman to be well informed and anxious to be constructive in his approach. I cannot believe that he thinks that the first part of his supplementary Question begins to have any validity. It means that no Government could ever engage in confidential discussions with another Government or with an international agency without publishing fully everything that they said. Clearly that is a position which has never begun to be accepted by any British Government.

Mr. Sheldon: Can my right hon. Friend tell us the total number of staff sent on the inspection, their length of stay, and their nationalities? Further, can he say if the amount of Treasury borrowing will be kept within the limits set by the International Monetary Fund?

Mr. Jenkins: Information about the Mission has been published. It is composed of four people. The nationalities are as follows: one British, one Australian, one American and one Dutch. As for the length of the Mission, I believe that it is drawing to an end at the present time. It is the normal length of any mission of this sort to any country. There is nothing exceptional about it. As for the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary Question, I could not answer


that without anticipating my Budget statement.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the fact that the Government's forward economic forecasts are now being revealed to the I.M.F., is it not imperative that that full information should equally be made available to this House before publication of the Budget?

Mr. Jenkins: No. If the hon. Gentleman was here earlier, he will know that I am seriously and sympathetically considering the basic point at issue here. It is not the case that Governments of either party have taken the view in the past that what is discussed with international organisations must be published automatically. Were I to take a different view, I should not be doing something which is necessarily wrong in itself, but I should be taking a new initiative which no Chancellor has taken in the past.

Mr. Mendelson: While accepting that my right hon. Friend must carry on confidential discussions, may I ask whether he will agree that he has also a duty to the House to comment on the reports emanating from Washington that the total level of public expenditure will be laid down by the Mission from the I.M.F.? Surely the House has the right to know whether or not his policy is so predetermined?

Mr. Jenkins: I can certainly reiterate what I told the House a few days after becoming Chancellor, which is, if anything, even more true now than it was then. The limitations upon me are set by the harsh facts of the situation and not undertakings given by my predecessors or anything brought to my notice by the I.M.F. or anyone else.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Accepting the need in present circumstances for such an inspection and accepting also that no Chancellor has made such information available before, will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the fact that these forecasts have been given strengthens the case made from both sides of the House in earlier Questions for making similar information available to the House?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that it does that. I am sure that forecasts have

been made in the past without their being published. I say again that I will consider the basic request seriously.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the Chancellor now answer the second part of my supplementary Question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne. Next Question.

Deutsche Mark

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he has given to seeking agreement on invocation of the International Monetary Fund scarce currency rules against the Deutsche Mark.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I do not consider that such an agreement would be practicable or desirable.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the disciplines of the International Monetary Fund should work in both directions? Is it not a fact that Germany looks like running a very dangerous balance of payments surplus this year, and would not an awareness of the existence of a scarce currency clause in the International Monetary Fund act as a spur to the German Government?

Mr. Jenkins: There is a real problem arising out of big and persistent surplus countries. This clause was drafted in 1944 but never used, and it is generally regarded as having fallen into desuetude. I am not convinced that to try and invoke it now would be a useful step for me to take.

EUROPE (TECHNICAL COLLABORATION)

Mr. Bishop: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on recent progress towards European technical collaboration.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 1st February to Questions by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston).—[Vol. 757, c.404.]

Mr. Bishop: Does my right hon. Friend realise that European Governments welcome the idea of greater technical co-operation, but they look forward to detailed plans from us? Will he publicise such ideas as he has?

The Prime Minister: We intend to do so. The first broad ideas were set out in a speech at Guildhall last November. We have made it clear that real technical collaboration involves participation in one single undivided market. But ideas such as the European Technological Institute and others are being worked out and will be discussed with Europe.

Mr. Lubbock: Has the Prime Minister noticed the recent announcement by the Nuclear Power Group of a co-operative agreement with companies in Belgium, Italy and Germany for the development of high temperature reactors? Is he aware that if the C.E.G.B. placed an order for a high temperature reactor for its new station at Hartlepools, it would be very helpful in enabling the company to exploit this technology in Europe?

The Prime Minister: That raises far wider issues than that covered by this Question. Certainly I have always felt and have said often in Europe that nuclear co-operation is one of the most hopeful types of technical collaboration for Europe.

VIETNAM

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will take further steps to initiate talks about a peaceful settlement in Vietnam.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, since his visits to Moscow and Washington, Her Majesty's Government have taken any further steps to try to arrange talks between the parties concerned in the war in Vietnam; and if he will make a statement;

(2) whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy over Vietnam following his visit to Washington.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Ques-

tions on 13th February and to the Answers given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.—[Vol. 758, c. 1146; Vol. 759, c. 916.]

Mr. Marten: Does the Prime Minister hold to the view that there is still only a very narrow bridge to be crossed to achieve peace in Vietnam? If so, could he say what is the North Vietnamese attitude to the San Antonio proposals?

The Prime Minister: This has been made clear by me. My right hon. Friend made it very clear yesterday when he said that what was needed was a move from Hanoi to make it clear that they would come to the conference table if certain action was taken by the United States. The conditions of this have been set out a number of times, not only in the San Antonio speech but subsequently, and they have been given further clarification. It requires their willingness to go to the conference table and engage in meaningful productive talks. That is what is needed for the Americans to take the action that they have said they would take, given that sign.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that U Thant has said again in the last few days that, if the bombing of North Vietnam ceased, negotiations would start, will my right hon. Friend now support the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his stand and make representations to Washington accordingly?

The Prime Minister: We were in the closest touch with the Secretary-General when he came to this country. We had long discussions with him and hoped to facilitate some of the contacts which had to be made. He has not produced any evidence vet. apart from what has been said, and he knows, as we all do, that the Americans will stop the bombing given that clear sign which is still awaited from Hanoi.

Mr. Richard: Will my right hon. Friend say whether, following his direct talks with President Johnson, it is still Her Majesty's Government's assessment of the position that the Americans genuinely want a negotiated settlement and that the prospects of such a settlement would be retarded rather than advanced by our dissociation from the United States?

The Prime Minister: In my speech in the White House, I made clear why Her Majesty's Government were not dissociating themselves. It would not help the position forward. As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary Question, the answer is "Yes, Sir".

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend now consider, in view of the increased horror, death and suffering that has taken place in that country in the past month, that he ought to cut across all protocol and try to initiate a meeting between himself, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union in a final bid to end this horrible war?

The Prime Minister: This is exactly what we have been trying to propose for a very long time in our capacity as co-Chairman. My hon. Friend will be aware that I discussed this at great leangth with the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union and with President Johnson, and, as my right hon. Friend made clear yesterday, we are in touch with all parties concerned. However, I stated in answer to an earlier supplementary question what is now needed from Hanoi. I do not believe it is much that is being asked.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (TELEVISION DISCUSSION)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Lord President of the Council on 19th January in London dealing with separate local Parliaments for Scotland and Wales represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Lord President of the Council in London on 19th January dealing with separate Parliaments for Wales and Scotland represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did not make a speech, Sir, but was taking part in a television discussion. A transcript of that discussion is in the Library and if hon. Members would care to read it they will find that my right hon. Friend made no statement of policy on these matters.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many people deduced, from what the Lord President said, that the Government were now prepared to look with favour on the creation of a system of government in Scotland within the United Kingdom economy which would give Scotland a closer and more direct control over her own affairs?

The Prime Minister: I am not, of course, responsible for what a large number of people deduced. I am concerned only with what my right hon. Friend said, and he did not say that.

Mr. Morgan: Does not the Prime Minister agree that dynamic feelings of nationhood in Wales and Scotland make the attainment of a Parliament for those respective countries a greater necessity than ever before? Will he give an assurance that he will devise national constitutional policies for those countries in keeping with the majority opinion expressed by their peoples?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware that there are many different views on this question in all the places concerned. My right hon. Friend, in his contribution to a very long television discussion, was only taking note of the strength of feeling that has been expressed.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The peoples of Scotland and Wales are nations and no regional or provincial status will be adequate for their needs, rights and duties. They must have a national status which will give them a place in international life.

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's views on this question.

Mrs. Ewing: Would the Prime Minister care to state on what grounds the Government are unable to adopt the policy of the earlier Labour Party as evidenced by the words of Keir Hardie, James Maxton, Tom Johnston and others too numerous to mention?

The Prime Minister: I should need a lot of notice to be able to do all the research necessary to give the hon. Lady the answer that she wants—and it might still not be the answer she wants. Of course, one of the fundamental questions which we have to consider in all these


matters, particularly concerning economic development, is the very great power that exists with regard to the economic regeneration of Scotland and Wales and being able to deploy all the resources of Great Britain as a whole, and, indeed, of the United Kingdom, because of the Northern Ireland problem particularly. But I will certainly undertake, when I get a moment's leisure, to try to do the historical research to which she has kindly drawn my attention.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not making a somewhat excessive demand on my right hon. Friend to explain away the speech of the Lord President of the Council? Is my right hon. Friend aware that for many years—almost two decades—some of us have been listening to the contradictory, high falutin' and psuedo-intellectual speeches of the Lord President, who is now enjoying a holiday in Bermuda?

The Prime Minister: I will draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the animadversions that have been addressed to me by my right hon. Friend. But on this Question, unlike others on the Order Paper, I am not put in the position of being asked to defend my right hon. Friend's speeches. This is a reference to a very complicated television transcript.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Leader of the House on that occasion said that he had been considering the matter for a year or two? Will he accelerate the thought processes of the Leader of the House, because it might be of some assistance to the House if time were given to debate the specific proposals of the Federal Government Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: I think the complaint of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is that the thought processes of the Leader of the House are already too fast and there should not be any question of expediting them.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for nearly 80 years this matter has been investigated time and time again, and the difficulty has always been to find some way of devolving the institution of Parliament

without doing harm economically and socially to the great mass of people in this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is a very sound historical addition to what has been said this afternoon. I do not think that it was the intention of my right hon. Friend, in the television programme to which I have referred, to act as a catalyst in this general connection.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer to my Question, I shall seek leave to pursue the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Later—

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. During Question Time my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the Lord President of the Council and said that he was on holiday. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend is attending a Parliamentary conference as the representative of the Government, and this cannot be considered a holiday. The Lord President of the Council happens to be discussing items such as Vietnam with American citizens, and hoping to get some sort of agreement with those citizens to help towards a peaceful solution to this problem. Under the circumstances, I ask that the remark be withdrawn.

Mr. Shinwell: In order to satisfy the sensitivity of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Walton (Mr. Heffer)—[Interruption] I do not interrupt the Left-wing; I do not see why they should interrupt me—may I say that I had experience of Bermuda a few years ago while attending a similar conference which was quite fruitless. I withdraw the reference to a holiday and hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will prolong his holiday as long as possible.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have some very important business ahead of us. I hope that we can get on.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Prime Minister if he will establish an independent inquiry into the way industrial affairs


are at present dealt with by Government Departments.

The Prime Minister: I would be happy to consider any suggestions my hon. Friend may care to make but would need rather more information than is contained in his Question. Perhaps he would care to let me have details of what he has in mind.

Mr. Moonman: Would my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that to any dispassionate observer the present distribution of portfolios on industrial matters appears to be somewhat illogical and somewhat zany? In the absence of a Select Committee, I will certainly provide some further information in the hope that he will look at it again.

The Prime Minister: I should be grateful to my hon. Friend if he provides any particular examples. He will realise the division of function between the Ministry of Technology with not only its technological work, but also the engineering and associated industries, on the one hand, and the position of the Board of Trade with trade, commerce and certain principal consumer industries, on the other.

RHODESIA

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further British initiative to solve the Rhodesian problem.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member means will Her Majesty's Government now put forward compromise proposals which depart from the Six principles approved by this House, the Answer is "No, Sir". The hon. Member will, however, be aware, following my right hon. Friend's visit to Salisbury last December, that it is for Mr. Smith to reconsider the position he then took up. He will also know that Her Majesty's Government have made it perfectly clear to Mr. Smith that they remain ready to discuss any proposals for a settlement which could honourably be commended to this House.

Mr. Wall: Will the Prime Minister say whether talks or correspondence at official level have continued since the Secretary of State's visit at the end of last year? Can he further say whether he still wants to reach a settlement?

The Prime Minister: Quite a lot of stories have been emanating from Salisbury this last weekend. The answer to the first part of the question is that there have been no official contacts or discussions going on since my right hon. Friend's visit, which elucidated that on three vital principles Mr. Smith has moved further away from the "Tiger" settlement.
My right hon. Friend said—and in answer to the second part of the question I confirm it—that it is our desire to secure an honourable settlement which is in full accordance with the principles which the House has laid down. It is, therefore, for any political group in Salisbury to come forward with proposals which represent a move in that direction.

Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dismay which is felt because the confidential discussions which Her Majesty's Government have been having with the French Government about the supply of oil to Rhodesia do not appear to have been fruitful? Will he invite the French President to London so that we can have a show-down on this matter?

The Prime Minister: The French President was good enough to invite me to Paris last June, and the matter was raised on that occasion. I think these are matters best pursued through the machinery of the Sanctions Committee set up by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. All such events are discussed by them.

Sir C. Osborne: Since sanctions are not succeeding, except in the case of tobacco and sugar, and since moderate opinion in Rhodesia will not negotiate under sanctions, will the Prime Minister consider raising sanctions for a while to see if negotiations cannot be successful, in the same way that his supporters want bombing to cease in Vietnam to give peace a chance there?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's question. He will be aware that there could have been a settlement at the time on H.M.S. "Tiger". The discussions then took place against the background of sanctions, and one part of the proposals that we made was that the sanctions would be wound up immediately


if the moment were right. I cannot accept that it was the existence of sanctions which prevented a settlement. Quite the contrary, I should have thought.

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the six principles, it is fundamentally an issue of trust that is at stake, and therefore there is no question of any deal with Smith, and we are still committed to Nibmar?

The Prime Minister: There are great difficulties, and have been, because undertakings which have been given, for example on H.M.S. "Tiger", for example in earlier discussions, have been departed from, under whatever internal Rhodesian pressure one can only speculate about. There is no change in our policy. We have made it clear that if there is a change of attitude on the part of anyone in Rhodesia, as my right hon. Friend said, provided they deal with these questions of cross-voting, the position of the chiefs, and the braking mechanism on which we are insisting, they could be looked at.

Mr.Ian Lloyd: Do not the Prime Minister's replies this afternoon to questions on Rhodesia confirm that he and Mr. Smith have for a long time been, and are still, locked in a mutually contradictory and self-sustaining value system which reflects the profound differences between those who preach racial tolerance, and those who are called on to practise it? Is it not time for a new attempt at statesmanship. and will the right hon. Gentleman try?

The Prime Minister: The value system in which I am locked is the value system approved by the House which set out the principles laid down by the previous Government, by my predecessor as Prime Minister, and by the present Government, and I do not feel free to depart from those principles, even if that means being called locked in a value system. The trouble was that when my right hon. Friend went out there in November last a lot of the progress that had been made on H.M.S. "Tiger" seemed to have been lost because of a backward movement on the three vital principles which I have just outlined.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Wedgwood Benn—Statement.

INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION BILL (CONCORDE PRODUCTION FINANCING)

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): In the debate on the Second Reading of the Industrial Expansion Bill, I informed the House of my intention to introduce a separate Clause with its own financial provision—

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, are not we entitled to hear what the Minister is saying? If we are, could you call for silence?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the House was listening, until the hon. Member raised his point of order.

Mr. Benn: As I was saying, I informed the House of my intention to introduce a separate Clause with its own financial provision seeking specific authority for Concorde production financing. That Clause has been tabled today.
The amount of money involved is large. Depending on the precise timing and rate of the production programme, the net working capital required by both companies together may be in the order of £ 100 million to £ 125 million spread over the next five years. The companies are arranging for their banks to advance part of this sum—up to £ 25 million, which they have asked to be guaranteed by the Government. A detailed examination of the possibilities has convinced me that it would be unrealistic to look to the private sector to provide on acceptable terms all the working capital required, at least during the early stages of the programme. I therefore propose, subject both to the House granting the necessary powers, and to negotiation, to advance the remainder of the sum required by way of an interest-bearing loan.
The degree of financial risk involved is also inevitably large. The need to invest large sums of money before success is assured is inescapable in any aircraft project. The risks with Concorde are being reduced as much as possible by a


comprehensive ground and flight test programme, but they are still there, and are too great for the manufacturers to bear unaided—a fact which they have made clear to me.
The Government have agreed to consider a request from the companies to underwrite these risks and to provide, in effect, an insurance policy for them against such possibilities as the failure of the development programme, which would mean a loss of the money already spent or committed on production. The amount at risk could go beyond the working capital requirement. I think it reasonable to grant an indemnity for the high-risk stages of the Concorde programme, extending to the bank loans as well as to other funds involved.
Similar problems arise on the French side and are being tackled on similar lines by the French Government.
Certain special tools and plant at present estimated to cost about £ 30 million are required for the Concorde production programme. These will be bought by the Government and leased to the companies at a full economic rental.
Negotiations with the companies are continuing, and I will report further to the House in due course. I shall also be tabling a Money Resolution within the next few days to cover the expenditure envisaged in the new Clause, and the Standing Committee will be debating the matter upstairs.

Mr. Corfield: While welcoming that statement as far as it goes, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give some indication of the maximum rate of production which he has assumed in working out the maximum figures likely to be required in respect of production? When answering that, will he bear in mind the desirability of a high rate of production, both in cashing in in the advance of Concorde over the American SST, and in spreading the overheads in the most economical manner?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what rate of interest he proposes to charge on the loan, and how this compares with any interest charged on money raised by our French partners in the French market? Will he also give some indication of the terms of the indemnity which he has in mind?

Mr. Benn: The current programme is for three Concordes a month. Although I recognise the importance of the point made by the hon. Gentleman, the rate of production does to some extent depend on firm orders. The higher the rate of production, the higher the risk, and these points have to be considered.
The rate of interest will be the normal Government rate for this type of lending. We are in close contact with the French. They have similar problems to contend with. The indemnity details will, of course, be fully explored during the passage of the Clause through the Committee stage.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are delighted about his announcement on the financing of the production programme? He has been rather pessimistic in his statement about the possibilities of getting private investors to assist with the financing of this project. If the company made a rights issue, or went to the public, they would find many people who believe in British technology who would be delighted to subscribe.

Mr. Benn: This is one of the subjects, of course, on which we are in consultation with the firms, but I thought it right to bring to the House the Clause and the Money Resolution as early as possible. The negotiations will continue, in consultation with the French.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the American SST programme has already fallen considerably behind, thereby enhancing Concorde's lead and, therefore, the prospect of obtaining a return on at least a proportion of this money?

Mr. Benn: That is certainly so, according to the reports which have reached me. The American prototype will fly a year later than was thought, but, as the House knows, there has been some slippage in the Concorde programme as well.

Mr. Rankin: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking the House into his confidence by this statement and also hope that, throughout the production of Concorde, he will continue to make these statements when necessary? Is he aware that everybody who has the technological future of Great Britain at heart will fully support his statement?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There will be other opportunities, of course, for debating this project both in Committee on the Bill and on later reports which I shall make to the House.

Mr. Maude: Will the right hon. Gentleman now please answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield)—what is the rate of interest in this country and what is the rate in France?

Mr. Benn: I thought that I had explained. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I did not, the House misunderstood me. It will be the appropriate rate of interest—[Interruption.]—yes, at the time that the money is loaned. It is not possible to anticipate what Bank Rate or the rate of interest will be, and presumably the same applies to the French.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us support his attitude in this statement, but could he say something of the terms of equality of information with the French on the manner of financing? Do we have equality of information?

Mr. Benn: We exchange full information with the French, and, of course, the Concorde Directing Committee has access to all the figures from the firms concerned. My hon. Friend may be thinking in terms of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary yesterday. Rather different considerations apply in this case.

Mr. Marten: As this financing will be done under the Industrial Expansion Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no intention of taking up equity shares in the British Aircraft Corporation?

Mr. Benn: I think that the hon. Member should await the passage of the Clause—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—through Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because when the Clause, which is tabled today—I promised to make a statement to the House when it was tabled—comes for consideration by the Committee there will be ample opportunity to discuss the terms and conditions under which it might be appropriate to make this money available.

Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind the frequent reluctance of the aircraft com-

panies to risk some of their own money in these large projects, would my right hon. Friend describe the approximate proportion of the risk capital being provided by the British companies compared with the capital available from British resources?

Mr. Benn: It is not easy to make a comparison directly in answer to a question, since one must compare the research and development of Concorde with the amount of money made available for production. It is, of course, true, however. that under the levy scheme which will operate there will be a return on research and development money from aircraft sold. Of course, the production financing will be by means of an interest-bearing loan, so in practice recovery provisions are included in both cases, although inevitably commercial success here will depend on the number of aircraft sold. I should tell the House that the American Government are financing, I believe, 90 per cent. of the development costs of the American 2707 supersonic transport.

Mr. Hirst: Would the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit? If the rate of interest is the appropriate one, according to Bank Rate, what is the relationship between the appropriate rate and whatever the Bank Rate may be? What is the difference?

Mr. Benn: I understand that there is no necessarily immediate relationship between the two, but this will be the going rate at the time that the money is advanced.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would my right hon. Friend agree that his proposal is a gross misuse of public funds? Does he further agree that there is no guarantee that this aircraft will ever go into production?

Mr. Benn: On the latter part of that question, I think that my hon. Friend is rightly saying that if one goes in for large projects of this kind there is an element of technical risk, and I do not know that he has added more than that. As to the gross misuse of funds, it depends on whether the project is a success. If it is a great success, it will be a profitable investment.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS)

3.46 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highway.
I have endeavoured from time to time, in my humble way, to remove some strange anomalies in the law. I have referred to these under the heading, "Believe it or not". Today, I am asking leave to reintroduce a Bill of that nature—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House insisted that leave to introduce Ten-Minute Rule Bills should be asked for at this point in the day's business. We must listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir B. Janner: I was saying that I am trying to reintroduce a Bill to provide for payment of compensation by those responsible for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highways. Judging from the lack of regard for the necessity of dealing with this situation, it appears that we, the legislators, have been lulled into a sense of poetic languor by Gray's famous Elegy and that time stopped for us when we read the first lines:
The lowing herd winds slowly o'er the lea.
Today, the lowing herd, or some of its strays, suddenly amble on to the highways and motorways which have replaced the lovers' lanes where they were likely to do no harm and might even have added to the enchantment of the scene.
Unfortunately, on many roads or substituted roads, or even on some of the byways which were heretofore barely used, modern man chooses to use motor vehicles, and these no longer preceded by a runner holding a red flag. From the present law on accidents on the roads caused by straying animals, one would imagine either that we take a sadistic delight in the knowledge that so many are killed or injured, or that we have been lulled into a cuckoo-land dream. Under any circumstances, we are not entitled to allow this ridiculous and unsatisfactory state of affairs to continue.
The history of attempts to put the situation right also deserves the heading, "Believe it or not". A Committee was set up 18 years ago by the then Lord Chancellor, of which he was a member, called the Committee on the Law of Civil Liability for Damage done by Animals. This Committee was reported in favour of such a measure as that which I ask leave to introduce. Before then and ever since, a large number of accidents, many of them fatal, have occurred owing to animals being allowed to stray on the highways. Learned judges have commented strongly against the continuance of the present law relating to compensation to those injured or the relatives of those killed, but the injuries and the deaths continue from day to day.
In 1961 my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) introduced a Bill to deal with the position. In 1963, and on three or four occasions since, I have been given leave to introduce a Measure, but unfortunately these Bills have been obstructed. Eventually the Law Commission, which has been dealing with the question of civil liability for animals, issued its Report. That document stated:
To the general liability for negligence there is in the case of animals, an important exception under the present law. A school authority may be liable for negligence in allowing a child to wander on to the highway and there cause an accident. But the occupier of land adjoining the highway from which an animal gets on to the highway, there causing injury or damage to a user of the highway, is not liable in negligence, even if it is possible to show that in allowing the animal to escape he failed to exercise reasonable care and that the user was guilty of no contributory negligence. This exception to the general rule was confirmed by the House of Lords in Searle v. Wallbank (where the appellant collided on the highway with a horse belonging to the respondent which had escaped from a field in which the respondent had placed it).
the Report added:
However qualified, the exception from negligence liability recognised in Searle v. Wallbank has been the subject of frequent and strong judicial criticism".
The statistical information bearing on the problems raised by that case shows that
… in 1958 there were 4,135 vehicles involved in personal injury accidents on highways in which the presence of an animal was considered by the police to have contributed to the accident.
In 1957 the comparable figure was 4,132. If figures were available for more recent


years, I am sure that they would show an even greater prevalence of animals being involved in these cases.
On previous occasions I have referred to communications which I have received. I assure hon. Members that I have received a large number of them. Today, however, I wish to quote from a letter received by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), which illustrates the position:
The BBC's 10.45 p.m. Home Service programme of Today in Westminster' has for me, over the years, been a better soporific nightcap than Horlicks, and as I lie in bed listening to the daily report, more often than not I doze off before 11 p.m.!
Two weeks ago I was in this semi-conscious state when I heard the end of a report that one Member of the House was endeavouring to put forward a Bill to make Farmers responsible for their animals when wandering on the Public Highway…
In October of this year I was travelling on the fast lane of the M.6, near Stafford, at 70 m.p.h., when, out of the corner of my eye, I saw a cow running from behind a car on the North bound carriageway, across the 10 ft. centre grass division. Before I could do anything I hit the animal, killing it instantly and sending it 50 yards down the motorway. I struggled for control of the car and eventually came to rest on the centre reservation.
My car was extensively damaged, but I shall ever be grateful to providence that both I and my passenger were not killed. Had we not struck the animal dead centre, but on the right or left of the bumper, we should undoubtedly have turned over and at 70 m.p.h. this would certainly have proved fatal. Again a divine Angel must have watched over us, for how easily could we have skidded over the narrow centre reservation and collided with North bound fast lane traffic—
The writer adds:
We were undoubtedly lucky, though our luck was not sufficient to avoid a very large repair bill and four weeks without a car.
The day after the accident I visited the A.A. office at Liverpool. ' Sorry, Sir, we cannot help! Now had it been an elephant, you would have had a claim.' I could hardly believe that they were not pulling my leg!
My own Solicitor confirmed that I had no claim against the Farmer, despite the fact that the police had found the opening in the fence where the animal could have entered the motorway precinct. He remarked jovially, ' It's an old joke in law school that Bulls are allowed in China Shops! ' The Staffordshire Police

informed me that they had examined the case and were not taking any action".
This is one of numerous cases in which the folly of the law as it stands is exposed and, against this background, I beg to ask leave to introduce the Bill.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Paget: I fear so, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) in this matter. I was the unsuccessful counsel in the Searle v. Wallbank case and I had considerable occasion to study this matter. I assure my hon. Friend that I was satisfied that the House of Lords was right and that I was wrong in that case. To put on the members of the farming community the burden of warranting their fences and warranting that nobody will leave a gate open would be to impose a quite impossible burden on that community. As a matter of ordinary practice, it is far better that the burden of driving in such a manner that bears in mind the possibility of cattle on roads in country districts should be borne by the motorist and his insurance, and it would be wrong to change this law.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir B. Janner, Mr. Probert, Mr. Bob Brown, Sir S. McAdden, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Oakes, Mr. English, Mr. Robert Howarth, Sir M. Galpern, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Albert Roberts, and Mr. Graham Page.

HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS)

Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highway, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th March, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before the debate opens, I wish to announce to the House that I have not selected any of the six Amendments on the Order Paper. The views expressed in those Amendments will, no doubt, he spoken of during the debate, I would also observe at this stage, before the debate opens, that at least 40 hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak. It will help the Chair and the debate if speeches are reasonbly brief.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We are about to discuss one of the greatest issues of our time, an issue which can tear us apart or unite us. I think it is true to say that, excluding the extremists, it is possible for men who are seeking the same ends to have honest differences of opinion about the way in which those ends should be achieved, and I therefore approach the debate in that spirit.
What are the ends? The Government, Parliament, all parties in the country, are fully committed to the development of a multi-racial society in Britain—a society which will be diverse in culture and will be equal before the law; a society in which all communities will have respect for each other; a society in which there will be unity in purpose and common allegiance. Those are the aims, as I see it, of the great debate that is now overtaking the nation, as well as Parliament, on this issue. But this ideal of a multi-racial society, to which all of us except the extremists are committed, will not happen of its own accord. It is something that has to be worked for. Our policies must establish the ends that we will. We have to look to the long term and not Just to the issue or to the group of people who face us today or whose problems we may be considering at a particular moment.
Nor can we look at only one aspect of the problem. We have to consider the Common wealth as a whole. We have to consider our own citizens, and our own

citizens in this country are not least in this matter. We must have trust in all the difficulties we confront, and I believe many hon. Members in this House and people outside are finding that everyone is having to argue this problem out for himself.
The tensions and strains showing between the parties are just a reflection of the great issues which men and women are having to discuss and argue between themselves at the present time. We must trust the instinctive sense of fair play of the British people. Our policy, if it is to endure, must be acceptable to them and to their sense of fair play. I cannot separate, in this connection, those who come into the country and the treatment we afford to them after they are here.
This Bill, however some may regard it, must be considered at the same time, and in accordance with, the proposal of the Government to introduce a Race Relations Bill which will establish in this country equality of treatment in the very sensitive areas of housing and of jobs, which is to be introduced by the Government during the next six weeks—certainly before Easter. Both these Bills are, in my view and my judgment, essentially parts of a fair and balanced policy on this matter of race relations. I do not discern much tendency to call names. As I have said, everyone is concerned about this issue, and it was no easy decision to introduce a Bill of this sort.
I seek to approach this debate in a sprit of understanding of the emotions of many hon. Members who may find difficulty in accepting what the Bill contains. I hope that they will acknowledge that the others of us, too, are trying to approach this problem honestly and with a view to the achieving of a multi-racial society in all its aspects, and I hope they will acknowledge—if I may pick up a phrase used on the editorial of one of the powerful newspapers this morning—that it is possible that the origin of this Bill lies neither in panic nor in prejudice but in a considered judgment of the best way to achieve the idea of a multi-racial society.
Before I deal with the particular issue on which all the attention has been focused, namely that of the treatment of the group of Asian citizens in East Africa and especially in Kenya, I would like to point out to the House that Clauses 2 to


5 deal with a number of issues which are important in themselves and they should not be included in the general discussion that is taking place. These issues contained in Clauses 2 to 5 apply to the Commonwealth as a whole and not merely to the group upon whom the discussion has been focused. They contain matters that for the most part have been ripe for legislation for some time.
The issues that Clauses 2 to 5 cover have been considered by a number of interests who are particularly concerned about racial questions, and I think it is fair to claim that no great disagreement has arisen over them. Nevertheless they are important and, with the consent of the House, I feel I should spend some time commenting upon them before I deal with Clause 1.
Clause 2 makes a number of changes. Under existing legislation there is no power to require medical examinations for the dependants—that is the wives and the children under 16—of voucher holders who are already here or who are arriving here. It is a strange anomaly that the voucher holder can be medically examined indeed he may be refused entry on medical grounds—but his dependants may not. This is an obvious gap which should be filled in the interests of the immigrants themselves and for the sake of public health generally. I have laid before the House in the form of a White Paper, draft instructions to immigration officers dealing, in paragraphs 5 and 6, with the exercise of this power.
The only point I would emphasise at this stage is that where the head of the family is admitted there will be no right of refusal of entry to dependants on medical grounds. There will simply be a power to require them to report for medical examination. I commend this to the House.
Clause 2 also provides—this is a more contentious matter—that the right—and I emphasise the right—of entry of a child under 16 to join a single parent here is to be restricted to the case where that parent is the sole survivor. I will explain why. There will, of course, be discretion, as opposed to a right, given to immigration officers to admit a child to join a single parent in cases of special family circumstances and to meet cases of special hardship. These details are

set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the draft instructions. The reason for these new instructions, and the legislation from which they follow in Clause 2, is that considerable evidence has been accumulated that the existing provisions are being abused. A substantial proportion of the children now joining a single parent in this country, almost always the father, are brought here at about school-leaving age when they go straight on to the labour market. They come here too late to learn our language at school, and those concerned with the matter report that there are serious difficulties about finding suitable employment for them. It is, in a sense, an evasion of the voucher system. Many of these boys live in all-male households. In many cases the mother does not come here at all. As I understand the original intention of the 1962 Act in reading the debate, the purpose was to promote family unity, to enable children to join parents, but for a child to leave his mother overseas and come and join his father for work does not unify the family; it merely splits it in another way. It is an evasion, and the White Paper which I have laid embraces this particular point.
Clause 3 makes an important change in the law about clandestine immigration. Under the 1962 Act there is no power, as the House has become aware in recent months, to require a Commonwealth passenger to submit to examination if he is not so examined within a period of 24 hours after his arrival. Because of its very nature, there is no precise evidence about the amount of clandestine immigration, although some cases have been well-publicised and proven. But it seems wrong that a man who at present applies lawfully to enter may be refused admission or admitted conditionally while the clandestine immigrant has only to evade examination for 24 hours to be able to stay here indefinitely without restriction and without challenge. Accordingly, under Clause 3 it will be an offence to land here without examination by an immigration officer. On conviction for such an offence, there will be liability to imprisonment for six months or a fine of £ 100, and it will be open to the court to recommend deportation.
Coupled with this is Clause 5, which makes it an offence, punishable on indictment with up to two years imprisonment


and a fine, for the master of a ship or the captain of an aircraft who smuggles in immigrants in evasion of the Act, and anyone who aids and abets the operation will be similarly liable. When I announced this some time ago, I believe that there was general agreement in the House that there should be no profiteering in this kind of human cargo.
Clause 4 provides that the period after landing during which a person can be required to submit to examination shall be extended from 24 hours to 28 days. The purpose of making this change as well as making entry without examination illegal is so that we can return illegal immigrants summarily when the case is clear without the requirement of keeping them in this country, arranging for prosecution and making a recommendation for a deportation order. It would be wrong, in my view, for this summary procedure to be adopted in other thin clear cases, and the longer a man is here the less clear the case is likely to be. I am therefore issuing instructions that, unless the issue is clear-cut and it is evident that the illegal entrant has landed within the preceding seven days, there is to be no return to the country of origin under this provision without instructions by me personally or by a Minister authorised to act on my behalf. I should emphasise again that the provisions which I have been discussing so far apply to entrants from all parts of the Commonwealth. I distinguish between this part of the Bill—Clauses 2 to 5—and Clause 1, because the matters in Clauses 2 to 5 have been the subject of very considerable discussion and consideration and have been very widely accepted.

Mr. Charles Mapp: May I raise a point on Clause 4 and Clause 3, in particular, and my hon. Friend's explanation about the 28 days? I wonder whether he has made inquiries of the police forces in the North of England, who feel that 28 days is by no means a sufficient time to bring to book those who may have illegally come into this country. I speak of a town which has some experience of this matter.

Mr. Callaghan: I have not had representation particularly from police forces in the North of England, but I have had representations on this matter and I

should be willing to consider it again in Committee. Whether it should be 28 or 56 days is a matter of opinion. This is a matter which is particularly suitable for argument in Committee. Perhaps I can be excused from going into it further at this moment.
I come to Clause 1, upon which all the discussion has turned and which is the most difficult to accept. As the House well knows, it is concerned particularly with the problems of the Asians in East Africa, but it has very much wider repercussions than this. I do not think that it would be fair to the House if I were to leave it under the impression that we are discussing only the problem of Asians in East Africa. Various estimates have been given of the number of Asians in East Africa involved. It is not possible to make an exact count, but, having looked at many figures, I am for the purpose of this Bill taking the figure of at least 200,000 in East Africa as a whole.
In addition to that number, there are at least 1 million persons living in various parts of the Commonwealth overseas who are able, or potentially able, to come to these islands free of control. Most of them, in addition to being citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, have also local citizenship. To that extent, they are different, and I differentiate between them and the Asians who have not local citizenship. But their right, or potential right, to come here exists. The House has undertaken a liability to admit well over 1 million people to these islands without control of any sort.
Human beings being the same the world over, I would assume that, given settled political conditions in their own country, given an absence of persecution, and given the right to worship and work, the overwhelming majority of these 1 million citizens will never seek to come to these islands but will continue to live, work and enjoy their lives peaceably and quietly where they are. Nevertheless, there is a contingent liability on our part to admit them, and we should not act as if we may never be called upon to fulfil that contingent liability, although it needs little effort of the imagination to envisage the consequences if the right of uncontrolled entry at any time in any numbers were to be envisaged for these groups if


political conditions in their countries became unsettled.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Callaghan: Not at the moment. I am in the middle of an argument.
We are dealing with a problem potentially much larger than that of the Kenya Asians. It includes all the Asians in other parts of Africa and this very much larger number of citizens totalling 1 million or more.
I come to the argument put many times that we are legislating too hastily, in a panic. I believe that it would be irresponsible not to legislate on this vast issue of whether this country could afford in any circumstances to envisage the prospect of an invasion of a size which I have indicated, even though it is not likely. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe that we must face the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have got into trouble in the past for not being willing to face them. We have given pledges to people which, if they were carried out because of great political turbulence and commotion in a particular area, could result in the services of this country being placed under far greater strain than they are at present.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my right hon. Friend say how many of these 1 million people would be excepted from any restrictions by reason of the substantial link with this country as defined in the Bill?

Mr. Callaghan: As defined in the Bill, most of these people would not be excepted. I should like to come to the circumstances underlying the 1962 Act, because Parliament was then legislating for an entirely different situation from the present situation. However, if I can develop the argument in my own way, I shall return to the point later.
I was dealing with the question of hasty or panic legislation. I should like to put the House in possession of some of the facts. A steady number of Asians—we do not know exactly how many—were arriving in this country from East Africa during 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966. The real increase in the flow did not begin until last summer, following the passage of the Kenya Immigration Act

and the Trade Licensing Act. When the Kenya Government put these Measures on the Statute Book, emigration from Kenya began to increase and the British Government, because of the nature of the statistics, quickly became aware of what was taking place. Therefore, last October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations visited Kenya for a number of purposes, one of which was to discuss with President Kenyatta the consequences of this emigration.
It would not be proper for me, of course, to go into the details of that conversation, but I am entitled to say that my right hon. Friend specifically raised this question months ago with the Kenya Government. It is also fair for me to say that when he returned he concluded that the Kenya Government's policy towards the Asians who had been born and bred in that country was based on decisions that had been firmly taken by them and which did not seem open to question.
However, so far from acting in panic, the British Government still did not take action at that time—some people might say their action was belated; I would not accept that—although the Government began to prepare for legislation which they held in reserve hoping that wiser counsels would prevail and that changes in the situation would make it unnecessary for Parliament to legislate. I believe it was right to have this delay, to try to allow wiser counsels to prevail, for people to have second thoughts, and not to act in a panic, as we certainly have not done. But unfortunately that hope did not materialise. The flow of immigrants continued and, after a slight hesitation, increased substantially.
Finally, as the House will know, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald paid a further visit to Kenya 10 days ago, before we introduced legislation, but he was unable to find any ground upon which we could base the hope of any developments that would make this legislation unnecessary, for example, by reducing the flow of immigrants to the kind of level that had previously proved capable of absorption. The Government, therefore, are not proposing legislation in haste. They have held their hand for many months.
I come to the background of the immigration control introduced by the 1962


Act. The Home Secretary of the day was Lord Butler. I have read his speech and most of the debates which followed. What was the objective of the 1962 Bill? Lord Butler was quite clear. He told us what the objective was, and it was not what a number of commentators think it was. He said that the objective of the Bill was to exempt from immigration control—here I quote his words:
person who in common parlance belong to the United Kingdom".
That was his intention. I beg very great leave to doubt whether at that time in 1961– 62 Parliament's eyes were fixed on what the situation might be in the event of Kenya or other countries securing independence at a later date. If, as I believe, it was the objective of the 1962 Act to control everyone except those who, "in common parlance belong to the United Kingdom", it was not achieved. So it is that we have the present position. I think it is partly that the size and nature of the problem which could arise was not fully appreciated in 1962, and partly in consequence of independence Acts since then, that there has been a substantial increase in the arrival of a large number of holders of United Kingdom passports who do not, "in common parlance belong" to this country. Lord Butler was quite clear about what he meant by "belonging to this country". He meant people who were born and lived here—I am interpreting his words, but I hope that hon. Members will read the debates if they have not done so—large numbers of citizens whose ancestors had been horn here, whose forebears were born here, and who had lived here for a number of years. Those were the very people whom the Bill was to exempt from immigration control.

Mr. David Winnick: Mr. David Winnick (Croydon, South) rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot give way for the moment. I am making a difficult case and I should like to make it in my own way. [Interruption.] I hope that no one thinks that these decisions were arrived at easily or that there is anyone here who does not care about freedom and the question of liberty.

Mr. R. T. Paget: If my right hon. Friend is finishing that point, surely he ought to give way.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is an old friend of mine and, although he is usually wrong, I can never resist him.

Mr. Paget: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very charming way of giving way. Although it is perfectly true that this may not have been immediately contemplated by Lord Butler in 1962, when we came to the Kenya Independence Act and when we promised Asians that they could retain their British citizenship as protection, surely it was fully recognised?

Mr. Callaghan: If my hon. and learned Friend had waited for the next paragraph he would have found that I do recognise this. When the Commonwealth Immigration Act was passed in 1962 the inhabitants of Kenya—all of them, including Asians—became subject to our control. The Asians—became subject to control at that time, but when Kenya became independent in 1963 people born in Kenya and whose fathers were born there, among others, obtained local citizenship automatically and ceased to be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. A number of Asians obtained citizenship under that provision. The remainder had a right to citizenship on application within two years, but many did not apply. After the expiry of two years there is provision for the grant of local citizenship at discretion, but there is no right to it. The effect of these provisions has been that a large number of Asians in Kenya, either through choice or through inadvertence, did not acquire Kenya citizenship and in consequence retained their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Callaghan: Their status changed from independence day—

Mr. Faulds: Is it not a fact that the very option which the British Government gave those Kenyan Asians was the reason that they did not take up Kenyan citizenship? We have broken our promise.

Mr. Callaghan: It is not for me to speculate on why they did not take up Kenyan citizenship.

Mr. Faulds: That is the reason.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend advances a reason which may well be true, but other reasons have been advanced. It is not for me to say that that is the reason. My hon. Friend clearly has a right to advance that as a reason as much as he likes, but it is not for me to say why they did not take up British citizenship at that time. Their status changed from Independence Day. They ceased at that day to be subject to immigration control although they had been before and they then became eligible for United Kingdom passports.
The recent upsurge in arrivals from East Africa has been most carefully considered by the Government in the light of a great many reports that have been received about what is likely to happen and what the effect is at the present time. Careful consideration—yes—because to impose control on holders of United Kingdom passports, even though they have not had a direct connection with this country, is no light matter. Nor is it a light matter, if the House agrees, to impose a similar control on the large number of other citizens, over one million in number, who still have the right to come although so far they have shown no sign of exercising that right.
It has been suggested that this is a racialist conception. That is not so. It is true that Clause 1 does not apply to Australian, or New Zealand or Canadian citizens because all of them are already subject to control. The test that is adopted is geographical, not racial. Those who, or whose fathers or fathers' fathers, were born, naturalised, adopted, or registered in the United Kingdom, will be exempted whatever their race. We now have a large community of Commonwealth citizens in this country. Their children born in this country will be free of control.
Further, if they themselves, after they have registered here—as they have an absolute right to do after five years residence—and have acquired a United Kingdom passport, then go abroad, they may come and go freely. If they have children who are born overseas, they too will be exempt from the control, both while travelling on their parents' passports and subsequently if they obtain United Kingdom passports for them-

selves. It is a wild exaggeration to refer to this legislation as racialist. It is not the truth, nor does it help the cause of racial harmony.

Mr. Winnick: Mr. Winnick rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I turn to a question with which all the Amendments are concerned in one form or another and which has caused me a great deal of disquiet because they all refer to it—the question of appeals. The Committee under Sir Roy Wilson, which was set up to consider the matter of appeals, recommended a detailed system which the Government accepted in principle. Its purpose was to apply across the whole of the Commonwealth scene. It will involve lengthy and difficult legislation—it is not easy legislation to draft—as well as a considerable number of staff and substantial cost. In the economy cuts made in January it was decided that there was unlikely to be time for legislation in this Session. There are a number of very important Bills, including the Race Relations Bill, to go through. Therefore, in deciding priorities, no provision was made in the Estimates for the current year. I told the House last week that this was the position.
Nevertheless, despite what some may say, I am not an unfeeling man nor am I unconscious of deep feeling when it is genuinely held by others. Indeed, I am capable of it myself, as the House will know, from time to time. Because I am deeply conscious of the feeling in the House and outside on the question, I have been considering whether it is possible to do something to assist in the interim period. I repeat the undertaking that on the Wilson Report as a whole it is the Government's intention to legislate to set up appeals machinery. But we have the problem in the interim period of the special nature of the Asian immigration from East Africa.
I propose to set up a specialad hocmachinery to meet appeals by that group of United Kingdom passport holders. I have discussed the matter with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and asked him if he will appoint two independent lawyers who could fly to Niarobi to consider appeals in East Africa on the basis of the principles laid down by the Wilson Committee. If necessary—and I hope that it will not be—they could go elsewhere


in East Africa as well. The Lord Chancellor has agreed to do this, and we intend to operate the machinery as soon as possible.
I give the House the assurance, because I think that this will meet the doubts of many people who feel that immigration officers are not fully seized of the problem, that I will undertake to accept the decision of the tribunal or of the lawyers acting individually on all cases referred to them. In fairness, I should at this stage remind the House of what I said before, that there was no great dissent by the Wilson Committee from the view that the immigration officers are doing their job fairly at present, and that the great majority of cases are properly decided. I should say that on behalf of those who are carrying out a difficult and distasteful job.
I have told the House of thead hocmachinery that I am willing to establish, and it will be set up as soon as possible. The House will understand that in setting it up I am not prejudging the final nature of the appeals system that will be introduced, or the extent to which it will coincide with the Committee's recommendations. That is a separate decision. In order that there should be no misunderstanding I should like to make clear what the appeals will he about. They will be based on the Wilson Committee's proposals. That is, they will not be against decisions not to grant one of the vouchers because, as I shall explain in a few minutes, that would be an appeal against a decision of the High Commissioner, and could only be an appeal for a higher place in the queue.
An appeal would lie against any decision within the Home Office field, that is, within conventional immigration control. For example, there would be a right of appeal against a decision that a person was within the extended scope of the control; a decision not to allow an entry certificate as a student or a visitor, including a business visitor; or a question as to whether a person who has come under this control is a dependant of a resident in the United Kingdom, or of someone intending to come to the United Kingdom. These are the principles set out in the Wilson Report. From the kind of illustrations I have given, the House will see that I am trying as far

as possible to follow the proposals it laid down.
I hope that the House will feel that with this machinery I have tried to meet the views which have been expressed very strongly in the House and outside, and which I share, in anticipation of legislation on the broader front.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: While I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's concession, could he explain exactly what he means by "ad hoc"? How long would this special tribunal last? Would it be permanently abroad?

Mr. Callaghan: It is my expectation that it would persist until the full legislation came into operation, and then I hope that it would be superseded and overtaken by that legislation. I have so far been more concerned with setting it up than considering the point at which it should expire. It is not my intention that it should be a short-lived or short-run affair, but that it should last until there is legislation that overtakes it.

Miss J. M. Quennell: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important statement. He said that the tribunal would consist of only two lawyers. Does he expect those two individuals to be able to deal with hundreds of appeals? Will that number really be adequate?

Mr. Callaghan: In my view it will be. We have taken advice on the matter, and I doubt very much if it will be necessary to have a larger number. We do not yet know how many appeals will have to be considered. I am not saying that we shall have that number for all time. It may be only one, or we might need four or five. We do not know. I am quite flexible about that. I want to get the machine going, and I give an undertaking that there will be no undue delay in considering the appeals.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the people involved, if they are successful in appeals, will still come within the total numbers who will be admitted?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. If they establish their case they would naturally form part of the total quota. That must follow. They do not come in in addition


to the normal quota. Otherwise I could consider all sorts of possibilities that might arise. But we can discuss this further at the Committee stage.
I now turn to the number. It has been widely reported and assumed that because 1,500 vouchers will be issued, 1,500 people a year will be coming here. That is not true. There will be 1,500 vouchers for heads of households. Every head of household can bring his entitled dependants—wife, children under the age of 16, aged parents. Probably—I can only make a guess—this means 6,000 to 7,000 people a year, and that is the rate at which immigration was flowing before we had the large upsurge beginning last summer.
In addition, there will be the entitled dependants of those already here who have not so far joined them; for example, all those who have come during the past year or two, especially the great influx during the last few months. The House must take this into account in considering the rate of absorption. In addition there will be bona fide residents, visitors and persons of independent means who will be admissible just as are persons from other parts of the Commonwealth.
On the allocation of the 1,500 vouchers for heads of households, I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, and we have decided that the allocation shall be on a special basis and not on the lines of the existing scheme for the allocation of employment vouchers for the rest of the Commonwealth. We are dealing with a very different situation in East Africa, and the existing system of Category A and B employment vouchers, administered by the Ministry of Labour and related to the employment needs of this country, is clearly not appropriate.
Accordingly, these vouchers will be allocated on the basis of special and flexible criteria. The objective of the legislation is to regulate the flow of these people to the United Kingdom—that is, to form an orderly queue—and in view of this we have decided that the allocation of these vouchers is best made on the spot by the High Commissioners in the countries concerned, who will keep closely in touch with the changing situation and will best be able to assess priorities in terms of human needs.
In determining the priorities between applications for vouchers, the High Commissioners will take fully into account the personal circumstances of the applicant and his family and also their status under the law of the country from which they seek to emigrate. We hope that in this way we shall be able to operate the system with the greatest flexibility and that it will prove to be responsive to the needs of those concerned. The rules for the admission to this country of the dependants of those who receive vouchers will be as they are at present.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the point about the total number of absorptions in this country, may I ask how he explains to Mr. Ian Smith that a community of 45 million people can only absorb 6,000 a year when we are asking the white Rhodesians to have a multi-racial society and admit far greater numbers to equal citizenship? How can we maintain such a stand now?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that my hon. Friend is either statistically or factually correct. There are not 6,000 people coming to this country every year. Far more than that come from many parts of the Commonwealth. Something like 50.000, or 60,000 or 70,000 come in each year and the argument that we are not creating a multi-racial society within our own country is quite irrelevant to what we are discussing—how many we should admit to our country. I propose now to come to the matter of a multi-racial society because Parliament cannot just leave this at the negative point of denying admission or controlling immigration. We must say something about the arrangements for the reception of the immigrants.

Mr. Ivor Richard: My right hon. Friend says that 1,500 vouchers are allocated on the basis of need. Suppose, on the basis of any normal human considerations, the need for vouchers for these Kenya Asians is more than 1,500. Does he propose to raise that number, or will he leave it as it is?

Mr. Callaghan: We must be flexible in our approach to this problem. It is not helpful to try to anticipate a situation which has not arisen and which I trust, with the co-operation of others, will not


arise in this matter. I look and hope for co-operation in this matter, but the Government's approach must be flexible in regard to the number of vouchers issued. We should not, of course, issue 1,500 vouchers immediately. They would be related to need and distributed over a period of time within the next 12 months.
Perhaps now I can finally come to the important question of the immigrants who arrive in this country, because I am not sure that the House is fully aware of what is happening or what is being done. A number of voluntary bodies are playing a very full part in helping with the settlement of those arriving, and I thank them for their hard work and the efforts they are making in this very necessary task. I propose to meet some of them and ask them to continue their efforts. What they are doing through their efforts is making special provision for the arrival of citizens whose language and customs differ entirely from those of the rest of the community.
The Government have a dual responsibility. The first is to establish the conditions under which people arrive. The second is the Government's responsibility for these people during the settling-in period, especially in relation to the needs of the areas where they wish to go. We all understand, and we have heard and seen, the great strain placed on local services in the areas where these new immigrants settle. Over two years ago, the Government announced their intention of giving special financial help towards expenditure in these areas.
This help is over and above the grants that are given in respect of services such as schools. Local authorities in such areas are able to claim the cost of engaging extra staff where they are needed to undertake exceptional commitments in order to ease pressures on the social services which arise from the differences in language and cultural background and to deal with problems of transition and adjustment.
For example, the grant is payable—and I want to emphasise this so that the House and those local authorities who may not be aware of the position understand it—to local authorities which have to engage interpreters, specially appointed teachers, ancillary helpers in schools, staff employed in local authority children's

homes, health visitors in respect of visits to immigrant families in excess of the norm for the community as a whole, and public health inspectors for visits to multi-occupied houses. I give this as an illustration of the way in which the Government are making finance available to the local authorities.
The general rule under which the Government are operating is that authorities with more than 2 per cent. immigrants in their area have a prima facie claim for grant. So far, 57 authorities have submitted claims in respect of expenditure totalling over£ 3 million. The grant is limited to 50 per cent. of the approved expenditure and I make it clear that the Government will continue to watch this situation in a positive manner as it develops in order to assist with the integration of immigrants into the community.
There is one further and vital point in relation to our attitude. I have said before that it is not proper to isolate one aspect of this difficult problem and to treat it separately from the rest. It is essential to consider this matter in relation to the rest of the Government's programme and policy—indeed, of Parliament's policy as a whole. I have emphasised before and do so again that it is essential that, after our immigrants arrive, they should be treated in every way as equal before the law, and it is to fulfil this principle that the Government intend to introduce within the next six weeks, a Bill that will define racial equality in this country in a number of important issues, especially in the vital areas of jobs and homes. In this way, by having a fair and balanced policy, I believe that we shall be able to fulfil the obligations that all of us feel towards these new citizens who have come among us and to help to avert the tensions that racial disharmony would result in.
I regret the need for this Bill. I repudiate emphatically the suggestion that it is racialist in origin or conception or in the manner in which it is being carried out. In the light of what I have said, in the light of the full policy the Government are pursuing, which tries to do justice as between citizens overseas and citizens in this country and to those citizens overseas when they come here, I commend the Bill to the House.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): No one who has listened to the Home Secretary would or could doubt the sincerity of every word he spoke. He began by saying that this had been a difficult decision for him and for the Cabinet to take, and I do not think anyone will doubt that that is true. Perhaps the House will also not doubt that we on this side make no pretence of finding things easy or obvious in this difficult and explosive matter. It is clearly my duty to explain, as objectively as I can, the views held on this side of the House, but above all, because I do not wish to take refuge behind any of my hon. or right hon. Friends, to express my own feelings, which I hope the House will take as sincere.
Since I have been speaking of home affairs on this side of the House, I have tried to achieve two main objects. The first was to take any emotional steam out of the subject that I could, not because I do not care, but precisely because I know that people care so much. I belong to a very quarrelsome race, the Irish, and I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has some Irish blood in him too. This teaches me, as perhaps it does not some of my more purely English compatriots, that a careless word sometimes leads to bloodshed. Therefore let us be as objective and calm as possible, not because these things do not matter, but precisely because they matter so much.
My second main objective has been, as I suspect it has been the objective of every hon. Member on either side of the House, to assist in building at home a homogeneous society of which all of us can be proud, and which will command the allegiance of everyone dwelling within it. We desire no second-class citizens, we desire no race discrimination, we desire no dilapidated areas, housing different communities from the majority. It is precisely because all of us desire to see that in this country—and speaking for home affairs, it must be my overriding interest—that one needs to approach this question with very great care, although no one can approach it happily.
We spoke of this when things were in a much more relaxed state last November on the Expiring Laws Continuance

Bill. I venture to remind the House of what we said then, precisely because the situation was then more relaxed. I remember saying that we had achieved over the last two or three years, not more, a bi-partisan approach to this problem, based upon two propositions which were repeatedly affirmed on both sides of the House on that occasion. The first was that we should keep a tight control on immigration and the second that we should treat persons lawfully in this country on the basis of absolute equality.
It is through no fault of ours at all that I can see, nothing that we have done wrong, nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has done wrong, that this bi-partisan approach has come to be jeopardised by new problems which we were already foreseeing when we spoke about it, but which had not then assumed their acute importance. On that occasion, and it is there to be seen, I urged the then Home Secretary to look at and to act to deal with four main problems. There was the problem of illegal immigration, the 24-hour rule, which was manifestly absurd, and the question of the importation of children, sometimes without their mothers, at approximately school leaving age.
There was also what I ventured then to call the Sword of Damocles, that was the phrase I used to describe a situation in which:
All over the world, and particularly in East Africa, there are people of various origins, some with and some without roots in this country. They can, I understand, come to this country otherwise than under the Act. They have an absolute right of entry because they have, for historical reasons of one sort or another, a British passport. Quite obviously, like the customers of a bank, if they all entered and asked the bank for payment of their outstanding balance at the same time, they would cause a run on the bank."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 15th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 448.]
I do not think that it is our fault that this has happened. We have to deal with the situation whether it is our fault or not. I do not conceal from the House the fact that I view the idea of devaluing a British passport with the utmost abhorrence. Although I do not wish to enter into a dispute as to what assurances, if any, were given in 1963, I have always regarded the tenure of a British passport as something of which people can be proud and can be sure.


I do not think that anyone would feel otherwise about it.
I must say this. After anxious thought my own feeling is that the Government have been right to legislate. I could not honourably say otherwise after making the speech that I did, which I have sought to describe. If they are to legislate at all, then I am sure it is right for them to legislate quickly. This is because, and I say this sadly, and I hope sincerely, if the events to which I drew the analogy took place, and there is a run on the bank, what does an honest man do? Does he go on trading, hoping that the run will not be too much? If so, he is straight on the way to the Old Bailey. He will undoubtedly find that sooner or later he will be caught out and will do an injustice to the very people whom he wants to protect. The first thing that he does is to take control of the situation and then if he finds that he can relax that control—and this happened at the beginning of the two great wars that I have lived through—he relaxes the control to the extent that he finds it humanly and humanely possible to do so.
I do not want to waste a great deal of time arguing about the number of details on the Bill. We shall have an opportunity tomorrow to put Committee points. If one comes to the conclusion that I have come to, which is that we cannot honestly remain at risk, on the numbers which the right hon. Gentleman has given us, even though we may believe as I believe, and hope as I hope, that they will not all wish to come—and I am told that the Asian community in Kenya estimates actual arrivals at something infinitely less than the total possibility—then it is my honest conviction that we must act to take control of the situation, rather than to remain at risk, with an open-ended commitment.
I say nothing at all about the extent to which control will be required. It is a great mistake to think that consciences exist on one side of the House and not on the other. On both sides of the House, and both sides of the question, consciences are deeply stirred by these issues. It must be recognised that those who want to take control are every bit as conscientious as those who do not.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I do not want to introduce any polemics into

this, because I greatly appreciated the quality of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech last autumn. However, would he not agree that it is a matter of capital importance that at this stage of the debate we must carefully establish, whatever view we take of the Bill, what kind of undertaking the previous Administration gave to the Asians in Kenya when they were in office?

Mr. Hogg: That is very fair, and I shall give to the House what little help I can, but no doubt there are other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), better qualified to deal with that aspect than I am. I was concerned with different aspects of policy, although I do not shirk whatever degree of responsibility my membership of that Cabinet involves.
Following a slightly personal line, may I try to develop how I see the situation arising. The point of departure which I would take is the British Nationality Act, 1948. That is where it started. I well remember the debate on that occasion when Commonwealth citizenship and citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies were introduced in place of the pre-existing situation. Of all the Prime Ministers whom I have known, the most friendly outside the actual polemics of party politics, was Mr. Attlee. I remember him teasing me outside the Chamber about being a member of a great imperial party when he was creating this wonderful new citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and my replying, "Well, there must be some emotional unity as well as a legal unity to create a citizenship."
But the point about that conversation that I remember most clearly today was that neither he nor I had the smallest conception in 1948 of what we now call the immigration problem. How could we? We thought that there would be free trade in citizens, that people would come and go, and that there would not be much of an overall balance in one direction or the other. I can remember Mr. Bevin saying his characteristically vigorous but slightly ungrammatical way, "My idea of a foreign policy is to buy a ticket at Victoria Station and go where the hell I like." We all thought that in those days. It was a fine statement of British idealism in a slightly concrete form. It was not


until much later that we came to realise that, if we have a standard of life in this country which is much greater than that commonly experienced in the rest of the world, particularly in the Commonwealth, we need to have only an unrestricted right of entry and it will act as a magnet to which people will come because they are poor, because they are frightened or because they are persecuted. Although one would like to welcome them with open arms, irrespective of race or colour, there comes a point at which one must say that this country is not manifestly under-populated and that we must try and control our own social problems.
So there came the 1962 Act, which is the next great milestone along this road. I remember with the utmost poignancy the anxious discussions that we had in the Government. At that time, the Commonwealth passport gave an unrestricted right of entry, and the passport of the British subject who was a subject of the United Kingdom and the Colonies also gave an unrestricted right of entry whether it was issued in Gibraltar by the Governor, in Mauritius or in Fiji, or issued by the British High Commissioner in Australia, India or any of the independent territories. We went through all the agonies and qualms of conscience which we are going through today, because we devalued the British passport then and we hated doing it. It may be that some think now that we did it too late. We have often been accused of doing it too late, but, like the right hon. Gentleman, we delayed until we felt there was no other course.
To anyone whose conscience in the matter lies on the other side to mine, I would only say, "If you intend to vote against this Bill on conscientious grounds, make sure that you endure to the bitter end. Make sure that you are prepared to face the ultimate consequences, because, if you legislate too late, getting over your scruples when most of the situation that you wish to avoid has happened already, you will get an element of the worst of both worlds, and that is not an honest thing to do".
That is the experience through which I have lived and, although I cannot tell the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) exactly what happened at the

next stage or what assurance was given, I do know what happened then, because then came the independence of Kenya. I do not say a word of reproach on the other side of the fence, but I would say this in confirmation of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
The right hon. Gentleman soon intends to legislate in this House to prevent discrimination in employment between lawful residents of the country of different colours. I heard Mr. Tom Mboya on the wireless recently claiming that it was lawful to discriminate between residents of a country if they were of a different nationality from one's own. I ask myself, when does discrimination become respectable? The answer appears to be when it is called Nationalism and is done by someone else against a third party's race. I ask myself what we have done wrong and why the right hon. Gentleman should be accused of being a racialist, when all that he is trying to do is to cope with a situation which he did not create.

Mr. Stanley Henig: There is one point in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument which I have not followed. He mentioned the fact that Mr. Mboya is passing legislation to discriminate against certain people, and it appears from his argument that he is saying that, because they are being discriminated against in Kenya, we should keep them out. But where are those people to go? What is to become of them?

Mr. Hogg: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is not following me. I was not making that point. I said that we were trying honestly to deal with a situation which was not of our making and that, if accusations of racialism or discrimination could be made against anyone, it was not against us.
I want to go on from there, because I am certain in my heart that, if we were threatened suddenly with a potential influx of 1 million Scandinavians, Italians or French, even if we thought that the majority would not come, we should not be called racialists if we sought to control the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right. At the moment, we are letting in and treating increasingly as equals a


very large number of people of the very races who are most affected by the Bill. It must be added that a number of people of unblemished white descent will be covered by its provisions. There are plenty of white inhabitants of Kenya whose grandfathers were not born in the United Kingdom. Then there are naturalised people. I do not want to give a confidence away but, before I began my speech, I was stopped by one of my hon. Friends who asked me to make the point that there were hundreds of people caught by the Bill who come into the category that I have just mentioned. If their grandfathers were born in Australia or South Africa, they come under the Bill.
This is not a racial Bill. Before we begin talking passionately about the racial issue, let me say that I have read in the Press what was said about the preference given in the Bill to those whose grandfathers came from the United Kingdom.
What do we mean by discrimination? All the great nations of the earth have what the Jews call a Diaspora. The Jews have it, the British have it, the Irish have a Diaspora, the Chinese have an enormous Diaspora, so have the Arabs, the Indians and the Pakistanis.
I do not believe that it is racial discrimination in any offensive sense if one says to people in that relation to oneself that we recognise some special and residual obligation towards them when they come to our own country. It is not offensive to take this attitude. Any other would not be realistic.
I object to duality of standards. If the Lebanese can do it to the Lebanese who return from Brazil, we are entitled to do it to people who have this kind of relation with us. I do not see anything offensive in it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledges that there are these differences: that this situation arose, in the first place, from the break-up of our own Empire; secondly, that it is a derogation of our own grant, and we are virtually making these people in Kenya stateless?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with the first part up to a point, but not the second part. They are not stateless and it does them a bad service to suggest that they are. I am not making my argument with any

kind of relish. I am asking the House to realise the consequences of the new situation in which we find ourselves and not necessarily to think it is unconscientious if we say in advance that we are only able to do what we can, but we will do our best.
Having said that, I want to endeavour to rehearse some of the thoughts which have gone on in the minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I found that there was almost universal dislike to devaluing the British passport. That I think we all share. I am sure that it meets with sympathy opposite. People thought that we had a special obligation to these particular Asians over and above those from any other Commonwealth country. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have felt that the 1,500 figure was a low one and they will have been glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman talk in terms of flexibility. Others would say that we make our situation unduly difficult—though I know what the Under-Secretary said to me three or four weeks ago—by counting as part of the total Commonwealth voucher system immigrants from Australia when we know that there is a net outflow of Australian citizens. When I say "Australia" I cover other countries where there is a net overflow irrespective of race.
I know, for instance, that my right hon. and hon. Friends are deeply concerned about the question of appeal. We were putting down, and shall put down, an Amendment on rather different terms from what the right hon. Gentleman told us this afternoon. We had determined on that course before we heard him. Therefore, I do not wish to condemn what he said without consideration. Equally I hope he will not condemn what we say. I was not as friendly towards the Roy Wilson suggestions as I think the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was. I thought that questions of compassion and policy must ultimately be for the House and the Home Secretary. I do not like Ministers—I shall use a phrase which is not intended to be offensive, but may sound it—who try to get away from that responsibility by saying that they will always take the advice of somebody else. The idea of our Amendment was to be that there would be at this end, whatever one may do at the other end, some right of appeal to the courts on justiciable


issues, not on issues which are not justiciable. I was hoping that this would be the basis if not of agreement, at any rate of amicable discussion.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House on what is obviously a difficult matter upon which many hon. Members desire to speak, but it will be apparent—

Mr. Ben Whitaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the problems caused by these immigrants. Would he agree that it is not the numbers of these immigrants, because there is a net deficit from this country, and there has been for some time? The problem is racial prejudice in this country which is unfortunately played up by some elements, but not by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful for those last words. I regard these as wholly distinct problems. The brain drain, the net deficit from this country, has to be looked at in different terms and judged by different criteria from the social problems we are discussing. If one were to accept, which I do not wholly, that there are a number of mass effects of prejudice against which most of us are prepared to struggle in one way or another, the hon. Gentleman must never forget that at its worst—and it can be very vile indeed—racial prejudice is often based on insecurity, and insecurity is largely the result of want of control, and want of control is precisely the thing which the Government are trying to get rid of by what admittedly is a measure which none of us like.
That leads me to plunge into my final sentence. It will be apparent from what I have said that, although there can be no question of an Opposition whipping in support of a controversial Government measure, I shall go into the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman if this matter is pressed to a Division. If hon. Members are persuaded by my argument, I hope they will do so too.

5.17 p.m.

Sir Dingle Foot: Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the anxious consideration to the Bill, but Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), all of us in this House have given some of my hon. Friends and I have

come to precisely the opposite conclusion. It seems to us that the fundamental issue is a very simple one: are we now to tear up the obligations which we quite deliberately assumed in 1963, which we have recognised ever since, and upon which those concerned have relied?
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) the other day referred to a loophole in the law. There is not, and there never has been, anything which can properly be described as a loophole in the law. We are not dealing with a draftsman's error to be put right through subsequent legislation. In 1963 the Government knew perfectly well what they were doing. In this respect we can rely upon the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser).
But the matter does not end there, because Commonwealth immigration was again very carefully considered by the present Government in 1965. That was when they produced their White Paper setting out the number of immigrants who would normally be allowed to enter each year. At that time no one had any doubt about the position. In 1965 the Government knew perfectly well that once these people, with whom we are now concerned, had obtained British passports, they would have unconditional entry to this country. At that time the two years had not run out and it would still have been open to the Asians concerned in East Africa to opt for Kenyan citizenship as a matter of right. But they were given no warning whatsoever.
The position was accepted by the Government in 1965. Indeed, there were various communications between Her Majesty's High Commissioner in Nairobi, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, and leaders of the Asian Community. The position of both Europeans and Asians was discussed, particularly in relation to the British Nationality Act. It was made clear to the Asians that their position remained unchanged. That is the position on which they have relied, and have been entitled to rely, until Thursday of last week. What the House has to decide is: are we entitled to repudiate these obligations simply because their fulfilment has become more onerous than was at first contemplated?
I submit to the House that this is a most retrograde step in the sphere of international law. For the past 25 years one of the aims of our Government—the Coalition Government, Tory Governments, and Labour Governments—and, indeed, of the Governments of other countries, has been to make private right a matter of international obligation. When, in 1945, we drew up the Charter of the United Nations at San Francisco, we did not merely set up peace-keeping machinery. The aims went further than that.
If hon. Members will recall the Preamble, it includes these words:
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human persons, in equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.
That was followed in 1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15 of which assures the right to nationality, a right which in these cases we are now in effect taking away. I recall what was said by a British judge at the International Court, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, after the passage of the Universal Declaration. He said:
The individual has been transformed from an object of international compassion into a subject of international right.
Then there was the European Convention on Human Rights and the setting up of the Commission and Court at Strasbourg. In 1966 one of the achievements of the present Government was their acceptance of the two optional clauses in the Convention which provide for the right of petition to the Commission on Human Rights and the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Only last summer, when I was a member of the Government, as one of the Law Officers of the Crown I went to Strasbourg to appear for the first time on behalf of the British Government in reply to two individual petitions. In 1963, just before they left office, the party opposite signed the fourth protocol to the European Convention. This provides, and it is extremely material to the Bill, that no one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a national. This was intended to become international law. It has not become so yet, because there has not been a sufficient number of ratifications, but I want the House to understand that this was some-

thing which we intended to be carried out. If we pass this Bill we never shall be able to ratify that protocol.
The conclusion which I draw is that in this year of all years, in Human Rights Year, we are not expanding human rights, but taking them away. We are taking away rights which were assured to the people concerned, and upon which they have always relied.
What will be the position of these immigrants, or would-be immigrants, if this Measure becomes law? They will remain technically citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They will have the obligations which go with that status, but they will not enjoy the rights. They will still owe allegiance to the Crown. Let us suppose that one of them was to enter into a plot against the Crown in some other part of the Commonwealth. He would be liable to be tried and convicted in this country. This may be called a technicality, but it is a technicality on which a man was hanged only a few years ago. I am referring to the Joyce case. In that case the citizen betrayed the State. We are now asked to pass a Measure under which the State will betray the citizen.
Let us consider what the position of these people will be. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the million people who might be entitled to come here. But a great many of these people have dual nationality. They can choose on which nationality they will rely. They can, if they choose, remain in their countries of origin where they have the rights of citizenship. We are here dealing with people who have no rights of citizenship now in the country in which they live. They will not be able to come here if this Bill is passed. It may be that it will be impossible for them to maintain themselves, or earn their living and maintain their families, in the country in which they now are. In effect, we are creating a whole new class of stateless persons. We are transforming these British citizens into refugees, and the most pathetic kind of refugees, refugees with nowhere to go.
I think it was in 1963 that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to the Temple to address the Society of Labour Lawyers. I had the privilege of


presiding over that meeting. My right hon. Friend said, among other things,
The individual citizen must never be made to feel helpless before the great juggernaut of the modern State.
Nobody will be quite so helpless as these Asian citizens if we pass this Bill.
I do not intend to keep the House for more than a moment longer. My right hon. Friend said that this was not racialist legislation. It may not be racialist in intention, but it will certainly be racialist in effect. Of course there will be the odd case such as that described by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone of the European settler in Kenya, or in one of the East African countries, whose ancestry is not in this country. But in the great majority of cases the father or the grandfather will have been born here, and the effect of this legislation, inevitably, will be that the great majority of Europeans who have not elected for Kenya citizenship will be able to come here. The overwhelming majority of Asians will not.
It is for those reasons that I feel that I have no option but to vote against the Bill today, and to oppose it at every stage. I say this with the deepest regret. The Ministers on the Front Bench were my colleagues for three years. Nearly all of them are my personal friends. I have a very high regard for them all. Certainly not least for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Nevertheless I believe that now they are guilty of a tragic error.
In closing I remind my hon. Friends of what was said during the Second Reading of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill by Hugh Gaitskell. These were his closing words:
Even so, I beg the Government now, at this last minute, to drop this miserable, shameful, shabby Bill. Let them think, consult and inquire before they deal another deadly blow at the Commonwealth."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 803.]
This Bill is even more shameful, shabby, and miserable, and I ask the House to reject it.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: I support the Bill. I believe that it is necessary and right. In order not to

take up too much of the time of the House, I shall confine my remarks to the main issue, namely, the proposal to restrict the right of entry into the United Kingdom of Asians from East Africa. All of us in all parts of the House, I am sure, feel sincere sympathy for the Asian community in Kenya, who are undoubtedly deeply worried about their future. We all regret the need for this Measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Really."]—certainly—and no one more than I who was so closely concerned with the arrangements for Kenya's independence.
At the same time, I believe that most of us recognise that some action of this kind is now unavoidable. The purpose of the Bill is simply to give the Government power to deal with a situation which could otherwise quickly get out of control. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said, this issue arouses strong emotions, to some extent conflicting emotions. But I believe that the most useful contribution which I can make to the debate is to address myself quite dispassionately to the three main questions which are everywhere being asked. First, are we constitutionally entitled to withdraw the right of entry? Second, did we pledge ourselves not to do so? Third, even if there was no pledge, is it morally right to do what is now proposed? I think the House will agree that I am facing up squarely to the issues.
I will deal first with the constitutional aspect. The Government are proposing to amend the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. No one will dispute the right of Parliament, which is sovereign, to amend its own laws. However, it has been said in the newspapers that there is no precedent for depriving citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies of their right to enter the United Kingdom. It is said that the Bill will devalue the British passport and will create two classes of United Kingdom citizens, those who have the right to enter the United Kingdom and those who have not.
There is, of course, nothing new about that. As my right hon. and learned Friend frankly admitted, that principle was established, rightly or wrongly, when Parliament passed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in 1962—

Mr. S. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think so—

Mr. Mendelson: Give way.

Mr. Sandys: The House knows that I have been strongly criticised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I hope that they will allow me to deploy my argument without interruption—

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt have the opportunity to speak later.
What I have said, which is, I think, perfectly correct, is that there was nothing new about the principle of withdrawing the right of entry into the United Kingdom from United Kingdom citizens. That is a fact which I do not think anyone will dispute—

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich) rose—

Mr. Sandys: No, I will not give way.
That is an undeniable fact—

Mr. Richard: It is not true.

Mr. Sandys: —as everyone knows—

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Sandys: No, I would be here all night if I gave way to all who wish to intervene—

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Sandys: Oh, very well.

Mr. Paget: The Commonwealth Immigrants Act covered Commonwealth citizens who had an alternative citizen-ship. It did not cover anyone with a British passport and no alternative citizenship. That is the difference.

Mr. Sandys: Of course it did not just deal with Commonwealth citizens outside. It deprived all those who lived in British Colonies all around the world—I see the Home Secretary nodding in agreement—of right to come to the United Kingdom except under the controls of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act—

Mr. David Steel: On a point of fact—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sandys: No.
This fact is perfectly well known. The Commonwealth Secretary wrote me a letter, which was published in the newspapers, only a few days ago confirming this position. We should waste no more time on that.
Moreover, it is worth pointing out that Parliament, since 1962—that is to say, since the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act—has already once extended the controls of that Act to persons who were originally exempted. I am referring to the Southern Rhodesia Order of 1965, which withdrew from Rhodesian holders of United Kingdom passports their previous right of unrestricted entry of Britain. I am dealing with the point that there is no precedent for doing what is now proposed.

Mr. Richard: Did you vote for that Order?

Mr. Sandys: I wish now to deal with the suggestion that if we pass this Bill we shall be dishonouring a pledge given at the time of independence. For me, that is the crucial issue. It is said that, as Colonial Secretary, I gave an undertaking to the Asians in Kenya that they would always have the right to come to Britain. Put in more precise legal terms, it is alleged that I gave a promise that the British Parliament would never at any time or in any circumstances exercise its right to extend immigration control to United Kingdom citizens in Kenya. That is what it amounts to, if that pledge were given.
Apart from the fact that Ministers have no power to tie the hands of Parliament, I can assure the House that no such pledge was given, either in public or in private—

Mr. Faulds: Just in legislation.

Mr. Sandys: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point. Some people hold the view that the Kenya Independence Act in itself implied an undertaking to grant unrestricted entry to all holders of United Kingdom passports in Kenya—

Mr. Mendelson: Macleod said so.

Mr. Sandys: With all respect to those now expressing this opinion, I believe that this interpretation is somewhat of an afterthought—

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: No, I asked you about it and this was in 1963.

Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Thorpe: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it is an afterthought, if he will look at the Second Reading debate on 22nd November, 1963, he will see that, since the Minister of State had not answered this partcular question when I asked him, I asked the right hon. Gentleman himself whether this meant free entry for Asians who either had United Kingdom passports or had not yet opted for Kenyan citizenship. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was a question of which he had not been given notice: in other words, that he did not know the answer.

Mr. Sandys: I have here the reference to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and if he will look at it he will sec that I was referring to quite another matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I was. I am not going to waste the time of the House on this. The reference is col. 1394 of HANSARD on 22nd November, 1963. I was dealing with the question, as is clear from the Report, of the right of European citizens in Kenya who had taken out Kenyan citizenship to reacquire British citizenship if they subsequently left Kenya—

Mr. Thorpe: That is not what the question was about.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman asked:
Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point about immigration? Do I take it that they"—
that is, I presume, the people to whom I had just referred—
would still be subject to the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act… "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 1394.]
If there was any misunderstanding about the right hon. Gentleman's question, nobody can say that I gave an assurance—

Mr. Thorpe: What about my question?

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman's question is not the relevant point. The question is whether I gave an assurance to the House which could be interpreted in any way as a pledge, as is now suggested.
It is being said that the nationality provisions in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, when that Measure came before the House, were put in for the express purpose—this has already been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot)—of enabling the Asians in Kenya to come to Britain if at any time they wished to leave their country. That is just not correct. Those provisions were common form to all recent independence Measures and were not inspired by any political motive or by any anxieties about possible future developments in Kenya.
It is being said that we conferred United Kingdom citizenship on the Asians and that we are now taking it away. The fact is, of course, that at the time of independence most of them—in fact, all of them at that time—already possessed United Kingdom citizenship but without the right of free entry into Britain, since they were subject to the controls of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.

Mr. Thorpe: Mr. Thorpe indicated dissent.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman must do his homework before holding up the House. I hope that he will have an opportunity later to express his views, but I assure him that he has got his facts wrong.
The Kenya Independence Act merely assured them that the United Kingdom citizenship which they possessed would not be taken away unless they acquired Kenya citizenship. The Act did not affect their position under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act one way or the other. The liability to immigrantion control was determined by the kind of passport which was subsequently issued to them. That was the legal position.
In this connection, I think it worth noting that the coastal strip, including Mombasa where a substantial section of the Asian community lives, was part of the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar


right up to the moment of Kenya's independence. Before then, the inhabitants of that area were for the most part subjects of the Sultan and "British Protected Persons." Thus they did not—and this is most important—before independence possess United Kingdom citizenship; and the Kenya Independence Act did not confer United Kingdom citizenship upon them. It preserved their status as it was, no better and no worse. In other words, they remained British protected persons without any right of entry into Britain, and that is their position today. This was made clear to the House during the passage of the Kenya Independence Bill.

Mr. Richard: Is there any other group of ex-British colonial subjects who are in a similar position? These are 130,000 people with only one citizenship and not dual citizenship, with only one passport, and they are being denied entry. Is there any similar category?

Mr. Sandys: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I though that he wished to intervene on the question of the coastal strip and the status of British Protected Persons, which is an important point. I wish to develop this point. I mention it because it provides further proof that the nationality provisions in the Kenya Independence Act were not designed to provide a special right of entry into Britain for the Asians in Kenya. If that had been the intention, the Asians on the coast would obviously have been accorded the same privileges as the Asians living in other parts of Kenya.
While I firmly deny the suggestion that any pledge was given, I recognise that there is a wider issue to be faced. We must also consider whether, even if there was no pledge, we have a moral duty to allow the Asians of Kenya to come here in unlimited numbers. There can be no doubt that they have considerable anxieties about their prospects. It is too soon now for us to decide how far those anxieties are justified.
Their future depends almost entirely on the policy which may be adopted by the Kenya Government. I appreciate that hon. Members in all parts of the House have misgivings and anxieties about the policy of Kenyanisation. It must however be made clear, in fairness to President

Kenyatta, that he has always emphasised that Kenyanisation is not the same as Africanisation, although I agree with those who say that it is an extremely restrictive policy.
Whatever changes there may be in the policy of the Kenya Government, we must face the fact that in the end there may still be many Asians who, for one reason or another, will wish to leave Kenya. The question is: where should they go? My conclusion, after much thought, is that it is not reasonable to expect us to open our doors to a vast number of people who have no direct connection with Britain and who do not in any way belong here.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Sandys: I consider that, if they wish to leave Kenya, they should return to their countries of origin—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—India and Pakistan, which certainly would not refuse them admission.
As the Home Secretary explained, there are very large numbers of people outside Africa who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and who hold, or are entitled to obtain, passports which. would give them a right of entry into Britain. These people include about 1 million Chinese in Malaysia and about 40,000 people in the West Indies. As the Home Secretary knows, I have been aware of these figures for some time. In order not to cause excitement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I have been aware of these astronomic figures for quite a long time—and for the reasons I have given, and the Home Secretary knows them, I have refrained from quoting them in public.
What is more, we must bear in mind the problem which will arise when our other remaining Colonies become independent. It would, I suggest, be very difficult to refuse similar rights of entry to racial minorities in, say, Mauritius or Fiji. What would we do when our lease of the mainland territories in Hong Kong expires, or when Hong Kong as a whole becomes independent? This could easily lead to a massive exodus of Chinese refugees from that area. It is obvious that we could not contemplate receiving them all here. [HON. MEMBERS: "What do you contemplate?"]
We have to face the fact—and this is one of the inevitable consequences of the process of dismantling an empire—that once we have granted independence to a Colony we are no longer in a position to look after the interests of its inhabitants as we did before. It is just a fact. Having given liberal constitutions to the new nations, we have to trust the successor Government to fulfil their obligations. All too many Commonwealth countries have torn up the constitutions we gave them. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are tearing up ours."] But Kenya is not one of these. Her Government have shown a sense of responsibility and moderation. There is, therefore, every reason to hope that now that this problem has arisen in an acute form they will do their utmost to find a just solution. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sandys: So far I have considered our legal and moral obligations towards the Asians in Kenya. But a British Government have a first obligation towards the British in Britain. The continuing influx of immigrants in recent years has created considerable tension, and as the numbers go up the tension increases. Faced with this situation, it is our clear duty in the interests of all, and not least in the interests of the immigrants themselves, to prevent the growth of an unmanageable problem.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: At the end of the day I shall be in the same Lobby as the right hon, Gentleman, but I wish I were in better company. Everybody who speaks has a right to be believed, and undoubtedly the hon. Gentleman spoke the truth as he sees it, but he will have to reconcile many of the things he said with his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). In view of the things he has said, if the hon. Gentleman is speaking the truth he has been the subject of a most malicious campaign against him.
Punch this week referred to Duncan Sandys wanting Britain to welsh on promises given to the Kenyans in 1963. It said that after all it was his promise. That is the opinion that is general outside this House. The right hon. Gentleman, of

course, has recourse in the courts against a statement such as that.
The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Duncan Sandys) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) dealt more with the legal aspects of this case, with which I do not want to quarrel. I speak with as much sincerity as they did on the practical implications of this Bill. Nothing that appears in the Press causes much surprise these days, but a week or 10 days ago there was a terrific campaign in the Press accompanied by photographs, and on television, of the hoards of Asians coming into this country at an alarming rate. Many simple-minded folk, particularly in the constituencies affected, might have had reasonable cause for alarm. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say this afternoon, his speech and that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) stimulated that apprehension and alarm.
I know what he has said this afternoon. He warned the previous Home Secretary a long time ago, and he has remained silent. If that is so this Government cannot be accused of approaching this matter with great haste. What is apparent to the hon. Gentleman must have been blazing daylight clear to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nobody would suggest that he is duller in comprehension than the hon. Gentleman, so he must have known this, and the Government, as the Home Secretary has said, must have been negotiating all this time. It would have been better if we had maintained the basis on which we could negotiate. I deplore the speech made by Tom Mboya. The emerging African nations are far too nationalistic. The curse of the twentieth century was not as Karl Marx imagined it, but the nation State. The nation State and its mentality is now beginning to affect the whole of Africa.
The fact is that this island cannot afford to assimilate, at the speed we have seen, people from other parts of the world. The facts of life, apart from the academic argument and the forensic fancy points, are to be seen in the Midlands in the constituency of Wolverhampton, which has been referred to. Nobody


would accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) of being intolerant in this way, but it is remarkable when she finds herself so close in opinion to her Conservative colleague for that borough. This fact is seen in Wolverhampton. Though this is riot particularly the case in my constituency of Leeds it has affected Bradford which is nearby.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) used the analogy of a call on the bank, everybody taking out at the same time, but, as any lawyer will agree, when one caters for the rights of minorities under administration one does so on the assumption that only a minority of that minority will use it. This is seen in the Education Act, where parents, theoretically, can opt for the school of their choice for their child. In fact they cannot do so, because if too many people took advantage of that it would make nonsense of the education system.
The other point is that a large number of my colleagues have espoused the cause whether we ought not to pull in from the Empire, from the far ends of the earth, and come home. I suggest that this country cannot take upon itself the whole legacy of the Empire. Of course it is a question of colour, and indeed hon. Gentlemen would not have taken this line had it been Rhodesia. Imagine hypothetical circumstances in which Mr. Ian Smith was overthrown and was a fugitive. Of course, this country would have opened its gates to the lot of them and there would not have been a squeak, rebels though they may have been. That is the species of hypocrisy at the root of the Conservative Party.
I would face up to that, because we must consider the ethnic groups which come within these islands and the fact that their whole way of life is entirely different from ours. It is said that
' Across the world' there may be as many as 1 million people holding passports as ' citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies'".
My hon. Friends have tended to think that this was an exaggeration and rather a caricature of an argument. It is estimated that in Uganda there are 30,000 Asians and in Kenya 100,000 Asians holding British passports, and that in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania combined there are 230,000. One never knows

whether the nationalistic feeling and the demand for Africanisation will sweep through all these places to the detriment of minorities.
I was in Ghana and the three regions of Nigeria in 1956. I had conversations with Nkrumah and people now dead who were in command, if that is the word, in Nigeria. One knows what has swept across that country. This House should long ago have debated the present position in Nigeria, but it has not done so. This sort of nationalistic instability is sweeping across the continent. Nobody can say that the Prime Minister of Northern Nigeria was not slain on racial grounds. Of course he was. Nationalism is rampant there.
If I may be the devil's advocate for a moment, one of the great difficulties of the Left of the Labour Party in dealing with Rhodesia is that the Rhodesians have seen such a degree of instability all around them, such as the trouble in the Congo, and it has blurred the argument and strengthened their case. Do not let us suggest that this is a farcical argument, because it is not. My trade union had to get rid of 19,000 members in South Africa simply because they embraced the philosophy of South Africa which was not in tune with that of my own trade union, which goes back to the eighteenth century. It may be a sort of apartheid.
These are difficult matters, because they have given a colour to the whole of Africa. If we want to find reasons for the actions of the President of Kenya, we might consider his feelings during his incarceration many years ago and the Mau Mau atrocities. Yet we still delude ourselves that we can export something like the Westminster pattern of democracy to these places.
Bringing the matter nearer home, it is often said, with some truth, that colour prejudice is a working-class vice. It has to be because these people come to working-class places. When the immigrant is a labourer, there is not much said as long as nobody else wants to do the job. There is not much said when he is a bus conductor, and nobody else wants to do the job. Make him a bus inspector, and what happens at Oxford? This concerns a company of which my brother used to be general


manager and which I know well. Let us face the fact before we cast stones that there is not one coloured bus inspector on London Transport, and everybody knows why. Speaking as a member of the A.E.U., I have yet to see a coloured man as a shop steward, let alone a foreman.
We have had enough trouble in this country concerning the craft unions and not allowing a person to go above being semi-skilled and becoming fully skilled. It is usually when the immigrant impinges on working-class standards that there is so much intolerance in the working class. If a coloured person has addressed a university seminar or if a student has come over here from the professions, he is treated with the greatest courtesy. Any amount of them come here, and within a year or two they become "blue blazer and brass button" boys. They become lionised by people who want to give the impression that they are liberal-minded. I am afraid that we must have better tests than that.
May I ask in all humility of all those who will vote against the Bill how much entertaining of coloured people they have done in their homes. How much hospitality have they given? How much of a hand have they held out to them? I am not even speaking of immigrants of the social classes walking round the Midland cities today. We know that this matter is very deep-seated indeed. Quite recently, a house near to where I live was up for sale, and the degree of apprehension in the neighbourhood had to be sensed to be believed. The working-class people of this country see the immigrants, however ignorantly, as an increased pressure on housing, schools and the Health Service and additions to the unemployment figure of 600,000. The situation may very well get worse.
A friend of mine who is probably one of the greatest campaigners for equal rights in the United States, Martha Ragland, recently gave a lecture. I should like to quote something which she said which will come home to this country, although we should transpose the words:
Most negroes see very little difference in their lives. They still attend criminally inferior schools (and largely still segregated). Negroes are not competing for traditional 'white' jobs—… the negro unemployment rate is twice that for whites and the teenage

rate is four times that of whites, and most employment is in menial, low-pay jobs as always. The lily-white suburbs are thriving, with much federal subsidy. The black ghettoes in our inner cities are contained and festering. Negro housing is a national disgrace, and white America is making it clear that they prefer this to having 'them' live next door. Rural negroes live lives of bleak despair".
Then she says this:
Why is this—after all we thought we had done to redress injustice? I think that basically the answer is that legal action unsupported by a genuine commitment of the people will never build a truly democratic society".
I say from personal experience that we will never understand coloured people unless we have loved at least one of them. This is something which is settled on a personal level. In exactly the same way as we choose our friends as white people, at the end of the day we have to choose individuals among the coloured people.
I realise there are others who wish to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.")—I am sorry about it, but I feel as strongly as anyone, and I do not want all virtue to be thought to be on the side of those who will go into the Lobby against the Bill.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw (Liverpool, Toxteth): I have listened with interest to the last part of my right hon. Friend's speech, which impressed me considerably. Should he not have left out the first part and said quite bluntly that there is racial prejudice in this country and, therefore, he feels that he ought to support the Bill because of that?

Mr. Pannell: No one who knew me rather better than my hon. Friend does would suggest that I should make a speech in the way he wanted it.
This is not the Bill which will settle the matter. The real test of feeling will come when we have the Race Relations Bill a little late, when we decide how we are to deal with the people who are already here, when we have to face up to questions of housing accommodation and all the rest. My plea is that we had better behave rather better to the people already here before we take on this extra-commitment. The strain is far too great at one time. We shall have a sort of civic indigestion if we try to digest all this lot at one time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is as humane as any right hon. or hon. Member and who, as


Member for one of the Cardiff constituencies, has seen as much of it as anyone here, spoke of a queue of people and of bringing them in at a level at which we can reasonably absorb them. This is what I am concerned about today.
There must be any number of immigrants already in this country, striving to make a living and trying to get better housing, who will be rather grateful at the end of the day for the passage of this Bill. It will help to prevent their chances being stopped when the time comes. Let us see that we behave properly to those who have been fellow citizens of ours for some years, and then take people in as humanely as we can.
In 1966, the Leader of the Opposition—if I may say so, his conduct was exemplary at that period, in the light of what had happened in 1964—took a good stand. As I understood his stand was that we should let people in at a rate at which we could absorb them but that, once here, they should have complete equality before the law. I am not satisfied that all my colleagues, on either side of the House, see the matter completely in that way. A good many of us ought to get a great deal of personal guilt out of our own minds before we take on this other liability, which, I believe, could ruin a great deal which has already been done and is still being done.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I begin by referring to the discussion which has taken place about the legal situation under the Kenya Independence Act, 1963. As I said earlier, I take issue with the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and with the Home Secretary on one point which they both made, that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, removed the right of free entry into this country of people of the Asian and African communities in Kenya. This is just not so. It was the amendment in 1965 to the 1962 Act which did that.
The Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, did not apply to a person born in the United Kingdom or a person who held a United Kingdom passport and was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Up to the Independence Act of 1963, people in Kenya were issued with

passports bearing the designation. "British subject—citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". It so happened that, when I became old enough to acquire a passport, I was living in Kenya, and I was issued with that sort of passport. I held it for 10 years till it expired. There is no question that, right up to 1963, those passports carried the full rights of British citizenship, and it was only in 1965, with the amendment, that the rights of people living in the Colonies were made subject to the Commonwealth immigrants legislation.
In 1963, we were negotiating independence for Kenya. The Government of the day decided to give the Asian community a choice. They said, "For two years, you will have an option; you can either opt to become a citizen of Kenya or you can retain your British nationality status, with all the rights which that involves". If it was the intention of the right hon. Member for Streatham to withdraw the right of free entry from the Asian, African and the European populations—the African population were automatically Kenya citizens—it should have been made clear beyond doubt in the 1963 Act that these rights of citizenship were being withdrawn.
During the debate on the Second Reading of the Kenya Independence Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) intervened in the opening speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, then the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby), to ask:
If a Kenyan is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and has not yet decided to opt to become a Kenya citizen in the interregnum, do I take it that he is subject to the Immigration Act unless his passport has been issued in this country, or is he allowed free access?
The direct question was thus put to the Minister in charge of the Bill. His reply was:
If the hon. Member will allow me, I shall leave points about immigration and others which might come up at this stage because otherwise I might get involved in a rather lengthy argument covering other aspects."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 1332– 3.]
In other words, there was no answer. At the end of the debate, when the right hon. Member for Streatham was winding up for the Government, my right hon.


Friend the Member for Devon. North asked the same question:
Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point about immigration? Do I take it that they would still be subject to the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act unless their passports had been issued to them from within this country?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I should like notice of that question, but, with reservations lest I make a mistake, I would think, once they have acquired a Commonwealth citizenship and have given up their United Kingdom citizenship, they would be treated as citizens of the Commonwealth countries to which they belong.
That is true, there being the option to take Kenya citizenship. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
But they may for a period still have United Kingdom citizenship before they opt for Commonwealth citizenship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 1394.]
The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question about what happened to those who did not exercise the option at that time.
My case is that there was a clear obligation on us in 1963 to say, if we meant it, that we were withdrawing rights of free entry into this country, and the fact that we did not say it meant that these rights were retained, as they have been retained in practice right up to the time when this Bill came before the House. That was the position in 1963, and it is the position now.

Mr. Sandys: The whole of what the hon. Gentleman says is based on the assumption that, before independence, there was a right of free and unrestricted entry accorded to all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in Kenya. For all the people of Kenya, unless they were foreigners, held United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship.
The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong in his facts. This is not just my view about it. The matter was raised in a controversy in the newspapers only the other day. I shall, if I may, read one sentence from a letter published in a newspaper which the Commonwealth Secretary addressed to me:
The Commonwealth Immigrants Act applied before Kenya's independence to the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who derived their citizenship from Kenya.

That is absolutely clear, and it is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Steel: I do not know what those words mean. I maintain that the Home Secretary made the same mistake today.

Mr. Sandys: Everyone is wrong except the hon. Member.

Mr. Steel: I am dealing with the Queen's English—that the Act does not apply to
a person who holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies".
I produce my passport to prove that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] We shall have to agree that we differ about this. All I am saying is that in 1963 we should have made it clear if we intended that their option was not a real option and that they would not have British citizenship status if they did not opt in favour of Kenya citizenship status. That is my point. We never made that clear.
Now that the two-year period has expired and a number of people have decided to retain the status of "British citizen", we are saying in the Bill, "Having given you the option, we are now taking away the choice which you decided to make at that time". That is what I regard as indefensible as the basis for this legislation.
One must refer to the recent reasons for the flood of immigrants to this country from Kenya. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) did not intend to suggest, although some have interpreted his speech as saying, that there was racial legislation in Kenya. I dare say that in Kenya, as elsewhere, there is an element of racial feeling and discrimination, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will, I think, accept that the legislation recently introduced by the Kenya Government distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens. It applies to citizens whether they be of European, Asian or African descent. The whole of the legislation about work permits and the rest applies to the distinction between a citizen and a non-citizen. Legislation of that kind is not unusual. We do it in this country. We distinguish between aliens and our own people in terms of employment and other things.
I would be the first to make a plea to the Kenya Government to slow up the process of Kenyanisation, but nobody can dispute their right to give priority in terms of home employment to their own citizens, because all countries do this.
I believe, however, that the principal reason for the recent flood of Asian immigrants in the last two or three months is the fears which were raised in Kenya about the possibility that Kenyans would be stopped from coming to this country. Those fears were raised—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has left—substantially by the right hon. Member for Streatham when, particularly in December, he announced that he intended to introduce, or was thinking of doing so, a Private Member's Bill along the lines which we are now discussing.
The effect of that in Kenya was catastrophic. The people in Kenya do not distinguish the subtleties of Parliamentary procedure. They do not know that although a Bill might be introduced under the Ten Minute Rule, it might never be heard of again. What influenced them was that a former Commonwealth Secretary was introducing legislation in the House of Commons. That caused considerable panic in the minds of the Asian community, who started then, and the movement has continued since, to leave Kenya arid to take the chance to get into this country now.

Mr. John Hall: Mr. John Hall (Wycombe) rose—

Mr. Steel: I have a lot to say and I cannot give way again. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Streatham cannot escape some responsibility for the present situation, quite apart from the past situation in 1963.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member is not right. Will he give way?

Mr. Steel: I am sorry, no. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I am willing to give way, but that will only mean that I take longer.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member is attributing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) something which is not his responsibility. If the hon. Member looks at the figures, he will find that the mounting wave of immigration from Kenya started long

before my right hon. Friend said what he did in December.

Mr. Steel: I am not disagreeing. I did not say that it started then. I am saying that the recent flood—that was the word I used—was caused by that action.
I believe, too, that it was encouraged by the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who took the same line. In a speech in Glasgow before the 1964 election, outlining his own version of economic planning, or the lack of planning, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said:
Let economic forces operate freely and the workers will be forced to migrate to where there are jobs.
That is what has happened in the right hon. Member's constituency. It is what has happened with the immigration problem. It has never been tackled. Immigrants have simply congregated without any economic planning in various parts of the country. This has caused serious social problems.
We cannot pass the Bill without referring to the lack of any positive immigration policy over many years. Every time that we have immigration legislation in this House—whether in 1962, 1965 or now—it is always negative legislation. The attitude is always to say that we will deal with the problem by putting up another block. There is no positive legislation.
When I look back to 1961 and the debates which took place then, I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was one of those who argued strongly against the Bill on that occasion because it contained no positive proposals to deal with a special housing programme or health or education matters for coloured immigrants.
The Government of Holland have been extremely successful with a positive immigration programme in a much smaller country. They have introduced a higher percentage of immigrants from their ex-colonial dependencies than we have done. They have done it by a positive social programme of meeting immigrants at the ports, seeing that they are put into residence, having control over housing allocations so that they are dispersed evenly


throughout the country and devising a special programme of education.
We have never done any of that. We have built up a series of disasters for ourselves which will not be solved by legislation against racial discrimination. I am all in favour of that—it will help—but unless we tackle the serious social problems, we will not dispel the racial feelings which are beginning to grow in this country. Every time that there is a child in a class where a large number of children are unable to speak the language properly, every time an immigrant family is moved into slum property and the property deteriorates, we increase racial feeling and tension and we build up the problems. I hope, therefore, that whatever happens to the Bill today, we will at least pay attention from now on to the problems which should have been dealt with over the last 10 years or so.
The Government have been lax in not making clear to our people that the problem of immigration is not quite as vast as it has appeared in some of the more alarmist Press. It ought to be said time and time again that even the number of vouchers which we allow—8,500 a year—are not taken up. Last year's figures was something like 5,000. There is, therefore, a gap of 3,500 in the allowed number of vouchers which will not be met even by the figure of 1,500 which has been put upon the Asian community from Kenya.
I say in all seriousness to the Government that faced with the panic feeling in Kenya, the way that we should have tackled the problem was to say, "We will not withdraw your rights of entry to this country. That is absolute." That should have been the first step. The Government should have said, "If necessary, we will cut back on the 8,500 voucher figure because those people all have citizenship status, and we will deal with the problem of the Kenya Asians."
Apart from anything else, if the Government are justified in what they are doing because of social problems in this country, there is no doubt that the kind of immigrants whom we get from the Asian community in Kenya are the kind who will be much easier to deal with. They are used to living in a British society. They are reasonably educated. Some of them have a considerable amount

of money. They are not the kind of unskilled people whom we bring in from India, Pakistan, the West Indies or some other countries. If we have to make the distinction, they are more desirable immigrants than those from some other countries.

Mr. William Molloy: Does the hon. Member realise that what he is saying is that his high morals can be affected according to the ability and commercial standing of people who come to this country? We are concerned about the rights of people to come here irrespective of their commercial status, even irrespective of the language they speak. If they have the authority to come here, that is good enough.

Mr. Steel: That is not what I am saying. I am saying that I recognise that a serious social problem has been built up through lack of policy and that we must tackle it. I do not say that we should open the doors to all and sundry. Every one of the vouchers which we give to a Commonwealth immigrant is at least given to someone with citizenship status. We are telling the Asian community that they will have no status at all under our legislation. Therefore, I would opt for the lesser of two evils. That is all I am saying.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals) rose—

Mr. Steel: I must get on.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member will realise, because he mentioned the number, that only 4,700 voucher holders came from among those already controlled by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. If he is to deal, in terms of numbers, with the problem, which he recognises exists, is he suggesting that we should cut down on the number of dependants?

Mr. Steel: No. I was pointing out the difference between the 4,700 who came in and the 8,000 which comprises Government policy. If the Government said that the number would be 5,000, which is more than came in last year, that would still allow for 3,500 adult male voucher holders, which is more than the Government are proposing to allow in. I recognise that the number of dependants has been the main problem over the last


year, but it is a diminishing problem. Those dependants generally are dependants of the principal 1962 intake, which came at a time when we had no control over immigration. They have now settled down for a few years, made some money, and wish to bring their dependants over here. They are the dependants of the large numbers who came in then, but since the controls came in—as we saw last year there were only 4,700—the dependants problem will diminish over the next few years.
It should also be realised that there is a net outflow from these islands and that we are r not an overcrowded island as is so often supposed. All these things should be put in the balance in order to reassure the public mind about the state of immigration. I recognise that there are loopholes, for instance, the extension of the period of 24 hours in which people can be examined and if necessary sent back. These provisions will be widely welcomed, but the Government made a serious mistake in not announcing that they would maintain the rights of citizens to come here. By announcing that they would introduce the Bill, they have caused an extraordinary situation by reason of which Asians have been flooding into the country who previously had no intention of doing so.
The Government have aggravated the problem by this Bill. They have caused very severe human misery and suffering, as scenes at Nairobi Airport have shown, apart from the great financial losses which many have suffered through selling their possessions at about 10 per cent. of their value. The whole policy has been disastrous, and the way in which the Government have handled it has also been disastrous.
There are about 65,000 Asians in Kenya eligible to come who would wish to come to this country. In terms of our total immigration from Eire and other large countries, that is not a large number when phased over five years. If the Government had said, "We shall assure you your rights of entry, but, because of our appalling problems, we may have to introduce some regulation and control the rate of entry at which you come in", I think they would have accepted that. Does the Under-Secretary wish to intervene?

Mr. Ennals: I am sorry to intervene again, but the hon. Member has spoken of a phasing over a five-year period. How does he think the Government could in any way influence the numbers of those who could come in from East Africa unless we had the right to deny anyone entry at any moment?

Mr. Steel: I would accept that, if the Government asked for powers to deny people in what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone called a bankers' flood for a temporary period, we must have some regulation. We are not being unreasonable, but by saying that the number must be 1,500 and no one will be allowed in unless he comes within that number the Government have caused the situation to get out of hand. I do not see how the Bill will operate in practical terms. I will give way to the Under-Secretary if he can answer this question. What are the Government to do to an Asian citizen in Kenya who, with a British passport, leaves Kenya—as he is perfectly entitled to do—goes to Paris and, after staying in Paris for a short time, comes on an Air France plane to London Airport? I will give way if the Under-Secretary will answer that.

Mr. Ennals: I will deal with it in my reply to the debate.

Mr. Steel: I shall be pleased to hear the reply. People will come here who are British citizens and have British passports. We are morally and legally responsible for them and we cannot shuffle off that responsibility to anyone else.
We on this bench will divide the House on this Bill. I am always reasonably suspicious when I hear demands for a bipartisan approach on a particular problem which appears to be some sort of cover up operation. I do not say that this is so and I believe that those who support the Bill are sincere in their views, but we believe that we ought to divide the House to demonstrate our strong opposition to the breaking of clear pledges undertaken to British citizens in Kenya. I hope that there will be at least a substantial number of hon. Members of other parties who will join us in the Lobby tonight.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am delighted to follow someone with


whom I find myself very frequently in agreement on affairs which touch human rights or the protection of rights.
I entirely accept, and with a constituency interest I should make it clear, the need for some sort of quota system based on the perfectly reasonable argument that we should absorb no more than our resources, economic and social, can take in. That is an aspect of planning which I accept in an ordered society. I know from my constituency the problems that the arrival of a number of people of a different culture pose, and I know the reactions which are usually more emotional than rational. Human nature is not so generous as perhaps 2,000 years of Christian teaching might lead us to hope would have been inculcated, but we have to take notice of human factors just as we take notice of social and economic factors.
Because of these factors, I accept the need for quota controls on immigration, but this new piece of legislation introduces an entirely new point into the argument, the abrogation of the rights that recipients of British citizenship had always presumed to be their own. These have never been denied before. It is sad in a Socialist Government to witness another small death in the great traditions of British liberalism. It is all the sadder when this Bill is the result—it is no good the Government denying it—of panic reaction to a situation which the Government have allowed to develop. They have allowed it to develop by letting the campaigns of certain unscrupulous and calculating politicians and an hysterical Press force their hand.
Panic measures are not conducive to good legislation or good Government. They yield validity in this case to the arguments of those whipping up racialist sentiment. This Measure makes racialism respectable, and the situation in which it is presented makes its discriminatory nature even clearer. From Home Office records we know that the exodus of emigrants from this country is about twice the number of immigrants to this country. We should remember that when we hear people talk about the overcrowding of these islands.
It was stated by the previous Home Secretary in November, 1967, that in 1966 only 5,461 of the 8,500 vouchers were

taken up. In 1967 the number was even fewer, fewer than 5,000 were taken up. Yet in this context we have this absolutely minimal figure of 1,500 for Kenyan Asians and other East African Asians. This does not tie in with the supposed liberality of this radical Government. The reference in the Bill to people with substantial connections with this country—for example, by birth or parentage—makes that superbly clear. It is no good the Home Secretary pretending that this is not an element in the disturbance we all feel about this subject. It means white emigrants who might want to return. The phrasing could not be more explicit nor more discriminatory.
In the fairly near future we are likely to see the quite illegal declaration of a Southern Rhodesian racialist republic. One must presume from the evidence of their support for the rebel Smith that most of the Europeans will accept citizenship of that republic. What will happen to them when, as is inevitable, the Africans liberate themselves and establish the State of Zimbabwe? Shall we then adopt a Measure of similar discrimination against a quarter of a million Europeans scrambling to get on our drawbridge? It will be interesting to see the reaction of certain hon. Members to that new situation. It will happen, perhaps sooner than most people think, so we had better turn our minds to the problem.
I am deeply disturbed that this Government, of which I am a loyal and proud supporter, shows rather less concern with fighting prejudice than with rushing this Measure through the House. It has been whipped into the House and it will be whipped through it. If they can rush this ill-conceived and ill-motivated Measure through, why have they not been equally urgent with the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill? This Bill panders to the racialist Lobby; it goes along with its arguments. The Government should have acted much more decisively and expeditiously to show that prejudice based on colour is totally unacceptable in our community. They have not done so. They must speed the introduction of really stringent legislation against any and every form of discrimination based on race.
In the Measures we are considering, the sticking point for me was the ques-


tion of an appeals board. If the Government had persisted in their refusal to establish one, there would have been no alternative for me but to vote against the Bill. I think that I am entitled to claim that in my case loyalty is a pretty tough tissue, but it has been stretched fairly fine. There comes a point when it becomes so tenuous that it is bound to break, and on that matter I would have reached that breaking point. The statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the other day that he had neither the funds nor the staff to man an appeal board was a sad revelation of a Home Secretary who needs reminding that justice must be seen to be done. I am glad that the Government are to yield on the point of the appeal board.
I am also relieved at the Government's intentions to press ahead with plans to provide financial assistance for housing, welfare and education in areas such as mine in Smethwick, where immigrant communities are concentrated. That is the most effective means both of helping to solve a real problem and taking the steam out of the racialist campaign that is being built up.
I want to examine what I consider to be the culpable factors in this very unhappy situation, the campaign and the acceptance it is receiving in far too many quarters of our community. First—and I say this very calculatedly—there is the attitude of the Kenya Government to the Asians in their midst. They are understandably introducing a policy of Kenyanisation. What is not so understandable to me is the speed of the process, considering that the Kenyan economy has been considerably helped by the skill and diligence of the Asian members of the community.
Pressure is now being put on them in various unacceptable ways. Some of them are denied employment permits; holders of temporary work permits are being required to leave Kenya within three months of their expiry; stallholders in markets and small traders are denied new licences; exorbitant sums are being charged for new permits to open shops, and, worse still, to attend school. That illiberalism of the Kenya Government grieves me no less than ours. That is a comment that needs to be made, and since I am known for my sympathy for Africans, for Africa, and most African

Governments, I think that I am entitled to make it.
The other culpable factor—and I am sorry that the two Members to whom I wish to refer are not present. [An HON. MEMBER: "They should be."] I agree. Perhaps they will be summoned. I should be delighted to have them hear my agreeable comments on them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am here at any rate. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his justification of the Kenyanisation policy of the Kenya Government with his support of a multi-racial society here? He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Faulds: I accept the Kenyanisation in Kenya because the President has accepted that people not of his own African race are perfectly entitled to become members of the Kenya community. That is surely the creation of a multi-racial society. I do not see the hon. Gentleman's point. I was not going to pass any comment on him. On this matter he is much more blameless than many of his mates.
Much more blameworthy are the politicians—two in particular—who have totally and irresponsibly used this opportunity for propagating racialist prejudices. We do not know whether they did this from consideration of electoral gain or from psychological motivations over which they have little control. It is immaterial to us. It is no doubt the frenzied fever of leadership animosities that impels the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). The only person who can have been delighted with his miserable performance tonight must have been the Leader of the Opposition, for it considerably diminished his chances in that struggle. The particularly nauseating thing about that gentleman—and I wish that somebody had brought him in—is that the man responsible for the Kenya independence arrangements and the promise of citizenship to the poor people we are discussing should now use that very issue both to propagate his own chances in the leadership stakes and bolster his party's short-term chances.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) worries me even more, because one can only guess at the agonies of mind that impel this knight of the sad countenance,


the childhood traumas that must have caused his animadversion to any social generosity. Perhaps it is a case of too severe anal training in youth, but it is unfortunate that the people of this country should have to suffer from it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman needs pity rather than revulsion.

Mr. Harold Gurden: Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak) rose—

Mr. Faulds: I shall not give way—not to the hon. Gentleman.
I am far from happy about the introduction of the Bill. That a Socialist Government should be responsible fills me with shame and despair. Have the Government forgotten that this is Human Rights Year? I beg them to remember it. This is not the way to commemorate it.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: As is customary in the House when one is discussing matters in which one has close interest, I want to divulge my own. Like all hon. Members, I am very worried about this extremely humane problem. For 21 years I have had a very close connection with Kenya. Apart from personal farming interests there, I have considerable business interests, including the employment of about 1,200 people, 200 of whom—at any rate until now—have been Asians. I also have a son and two daughters who live and work in Kenya and a son-in-law who is a Kenyan citizen.
Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate is very conscious of the 101 problems arising from even the present normal rate of immigration into this country and the difficulties we all face in absorbing such immigrants into our various communities, making work available, and providing houses and proper comparative standards under great difficulties. But to understand the problem correctly we must also appreciate the Kenya Government's point of view.
It was always expected that, subsequent to the Kenya Independence Act, 1963, there would be an ever-increasing African population becoming more educated and more able as the years went by and that this in itself would bring constant pressure to place them in new em-

ployment much of which was previously undertaken by Asians. Quite naturally, Kenya is following a policy of Kenyanisation. But Kenya still needs skilled and semi-skilled Asians—blacksmiths, carpenters, masons, mechanics and others—and also needs to retain those who are ably running businessess in which they themselves are large employers.
Understandably, it is too early in many cases for Africans to be able to fill these gaps, for they are not skilled in sufficient numbers. Such a major exodus as we have been experiencing in the last few months could well create an extremely serious economic problem for Kenya. We must also remember that Kenya's population in 1967, according to the last return in the mid-year statistical abstract, was 9,048,000. Some people believe that it must be over 10 million. Of this population about 192,000 were Asians, but that was still an increase of 4,000 over the previous return.
So, even with the rate of emigration, which was going on even at that time, the numbers in Kenya were increasing and not reducing. It has not been mentioned in the debate yet that Kenya has a real unemployment problem, and this is underlined at the end of each term when African youngsters leave school, well-educated. The Government have to try to find work for them, but there are not sufficient jobs. No such unemployment basically arises in the neighbouring countries of Tanzania and Uganda. That is why the pressure in those two East African countries will not be nearly as strong as it has been in Kenya.
Accordingly, therefore, it was quite understandable that the Kenya Government moved towards work permits. It is not true to suggest that they suddenly did so. This was happening some considerable time back. These work permits also require the support of very expensive bonds—not bonds just for the individual worker himself but for the whole of his family.
The Government have also been working towards trading licences. These issues were covered by the Immigration Act and the Trade Licensing Act of the Kenya Parliament. The Immigration Act requires that all expatriates in future will need a permit to live or to work in Kenya. There are various kinds of such


permits. The Government have begun processing those grades in which they feel their own Kenya citizens may soon be able to get employment, such as clerks and salesmen and, to some degree, mechanics and building operatives.
For salesmen and clerks, the Kenya Government have been issuing permits only for six months or a maximum of a year, and this cannot be acceptable to employers who have to back the employment of those concerned with such very expensive bonds for them and their families. The others are given two-year permits but, as this means no long-term future, employers and employees have obviously acted accordingly. However, it is expected that some of these two-year permits will be renewed.
The Trade Licensing Act seriously affects the Asians who are retail traders, particularly in the up-country districts, which means that their days are numbered. They feel that they should leave the country, and the sooner the better. There is also now the Transport Licensing Board, covering "B" and "C" licences, as we do here, and as the Asians have been the main transporters in Kenya, they are materially affected here because the licences are being very selectively given. All these moves, coming at the same time as extreme actions and speeches, regrettably by some of my own colleagues, have created the present semi-panic situation, forcing the need for this kind of legislation. Many of these Asians, if they came here, would make excellent working citizens and a sense of proportion has to be exercised.
I can well understand the Government's hopeless dilemma and the decision for urgent legislation to try and control this very difficult situation. But what I cannot understand, with the first-class relationship between the British and Kenya Governments, is why it was not possible, with our able High Commission in Kenya and our Special Representative in East Africa, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, it was not foreseen that this situation would arise. I cannot understand why it was not foreseen a long time ago. Indeed, the preceding Government should have seen it right from the time of independence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations at

the time of Kenya's independence and I was surprised to hear him take the line he did in his speech tonight because, if he did not understand that this problem was going to arise, everyone in Kenya did. Surely the two Governments should have got together and tried to plan the thing out without letting this appalling situation arise.
Kenya has done an outstanding job since independence, gaining stability and confidence and making progressive development. One would have wished dearly that this problem could have been avoided at all costs. Where does the fault really lie? It was absolutely implicit in the understanding of the Kenya Independence Act that those who wished to take British passports could do so, with all that that implied, particularly if the very circumstances we are discussing should subsequently arise. Unfortunately, in what we are doing today, we are blantantly breaking that faith.
Three broad categories of Asians are affected: those who still hold British passports, those who hold Indian or Pakistan passports, and those who have no passports at all. It can only be hoped that the Indian and Pakistan Governments will show compassion and will issue passports to those who wish to return to their countries, because they cannot do so at the moment. Our own action will be unprecedented for people holding British passports because they will be denied admittance to this country—possibly, I would stress, for ever.
Now I want to turn to a vitally important point which puzzled me last Thursday when the Home Secretary, who presumably should be so knowledgeable about these matters, was announcing this legislation. In a supplementary reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), the Home Secretary said that people placed in this position were still able to apply for Kenya citizenship. I did my utmost to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to correct the Home Secretary's mistake, because his statement was utterly untrue.
Kenya gave two years' grace for applications to be made for Kenya citizenship, and this expired in December, 1965. It is just possible that a few applications are still permitted, but they are certainly not permitted on any general basis. One


would certainly have hoped that more Asians, particularly those born in Kenya—and many of the families go back for generations—would have applied for citizenship. Many were absolutely relying on their British passports, and that is the crux of the matter.
If they had had no alternative, they would have gone ahead happily, as many of their fellow citizens did, applying for Kenya citizenship. They thought that there was something miraculous in having a British passport, Some 50,000 Kenya citizens took Kenya citizenship and they will continue to play a major part in the development of that country. A further 10,000 are still awaiting approval, properly applied for before December, 1965, and the Kenya Government have promised that they will expedite approval of the applications. It would appear that there are still 100,000 to 120,000 remaining. Their numbers will increase by this Bill. We are to restrict the total, including dependants I suppose, to approximately 7,500 a year, of which the larger proportion will presumably be available to Kenya. Bearing in mind all the calls made from the other territories, and maybe even tragically, from the Far East, as we have been reminded today, to restrict the entry to only 1,500 annually—and this heads of families—is surely being far too drastic.
This will do little more than cope with the normal increase in population that will be going on year by year. The remainder will be virtually stateless and jobless. In these circumstances cannot Mr. Macdonald, if he is so highly regarded by President Kenyatta and his Ministers, do everything possible to put forward to the Kenya Government the point that they might now consider reopening, for a limited period, applications for Kenya citizenship? What about the possibility of Kenya naturalisation? The Kenya Parliament reassembled yesterday, and I am sure that all of us are anxious to know what it is thinking. I trust that it will he thinking on these lines. It will have noted that President Kaunda of Zambia and President Nyerere of Tanzania have both advised their Asians to take up citizenship. Could not Kenya take compassion, and once again accept fresh citizenship applications?
Undoubtedly if they do a considerable number of Kenya Asians would again

apply. The present position is one in which the co-ordinated Commonwealth, if necessary, must play some speedy part to relieve this appalling distress which is already bad and may get much worse. As for our own country, we are littering the world with so many broken promises, such as the guarantee of the maintenance of the £ sterling. Now that the British passport is no longer an enduring document our word is being devalued everywhere.
The House will undoubtedly approve this legislation, because we have got ourselves into the predicament, and in fairness to our own people excess immigration must stop. Not one of us can be proud of what we are doing, for we passed the Kenya Independence Act and we gave the implicit understandings in that Act. We can only appeal to the Government to be more reasonable in the proportion. I was delighted to hear that they are to consider a right of appeal. Likewise we appeal to the Kenya Government for a more moderate attitude 'towards these very unfortunate people, particularly regarding the renewal of citizenship applications. There is no long-term solution in the Bill.
As to my own vote, while naturally wishing to hear the remainder of the debate, I find that I am in a very disturbing and distressing situation. On the one hand, with immigration problems over here, I obviously cannot feel that I can vote against the Bill. On the other hand, I feel that when a country has shown a complete lack of imagination in handling this problem from the very time of independence and has now gone back on its undertakings, it is quite disgraceful. I find it very difficult to support the Bill. It would appear, unhappily, that the only alternative left is one that I have never believed in, and one which I have never used in 20 years in this House. It is that of deliberately abstaining, but as I say I have no alternative.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Roland Moyle: As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Frederic Harris) was the hon. Member who followed me when I made my maiden speech in this House, and since this is the first chance that I have had of following him in a debate I should like to take the opportunity of returning his compliments by


saying that we have listened to a very moving and well-informed speech. The House is very grateful to him. It has helped us tremendously.
In spite of all the hysteria which has preceded this debate, it seems that there is a lot more common ground on this issue than one would have suspected. I cannot follow the hon. Member's arguments, because he spoke from a great wealth of knowledge and experience of the Kenya situation which I lack. It seems that the real issue before the House is not that there should be a quota system for the control of immigration, but there is an issue between those who are more impressed by what one might call the external arguments and those more concerned with the arguments as they arise within this country.
There is no doubt that from the point of view of most of my hon. Friends, today is a very sad day indeed. When one thinks back to the proud hopes of 10 or 12 years ago, the thought that we could let them all come, the thought that the British people were mature enough to absorb all the immigrants, the thought that we could treat everyone on the basis of equality—all these proud hopes are now dimmed. Never have they been so effectively obscured as they have been by this Bill.
It is a sad day for many hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has taken a very honourable stand in the Spectator, and as a man of honour he could do little else. I feel that if he reads the debate that has taken place today and feels less firmly committed to the stand he took, he can fortify himself by the fact that the people to whom he traditionally appeals for support would not be asked to pay the price for adopting his particular standpoint as an attitude in national policy.
It is very noticeable that the opposition to the Bill has been concentrated in the journals of informed opinion which are read by the better-off sections of the community. I appreciate that many of my hon. Friends are very much opposed to the principle in the Bill and the way in which it has been introduced. These views are held sincerely and with conviction but they should ask themselves whether they are not supporting a policy the price for which, if it is implemented, will be paid

by others than themselves. This is a crucial issue which we have to consider. I have lived with this problem very closely for three years, ever since I became a prospective Labour candidate for my constituency, which has a very large and substantial minority of Commonwealth immigrants, mainly West Indians, but including Indians, Pakistanis and a smattering of Africans. It is my belief that the majority of those who voted in the General Election of March, 1966, voted for me. I turn aside only to commend them for their percipience and to say I will continue to look after their interests with all the power that I possess.
Having said that, I think that the fundamental standpoint of the Bill is right and, therefore, I shall support it in the Division Lobby. What might almost be described as our laissez-faire attitude towards immigrants in the 1950s has blinded us to the fact that there are very serious practical problems involved. Where peoples of different cultures and races meet, there are bound to be tensions and, although a great deal of the difficulty is expressed in racial terms, primarily it is a social and economic problem. It is totally unrealistic to talk of net inflows and net outflows of immigrants and emigrants. It is wrong to try to compare the whole population of the country with the numbers who are to be let in.
Due to our hamhanded handling of the problems in years past, we have a not very great number of areas where immigrants have concentrated and put tremendous burdens upon the social services and upon the tolerance of the indigenous population, for reasons which we must investigate, analyse and, above all, bend our national efforts towards solving. I know that if there is a large influx of immigrants, a very substantial proportion will come to the area of London which I represent, and particularly to my constituency. That situation will further exaggerate the problems which we are having to meet within the borough. There are many hon. Members whose constituencies would be hardly affected by the problems which we are considering.

Mr. Gurden: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but, on the point about emigration, it means that a large number of our own flesh and blood are moving out, while we are taking in others


from outside. As a result, such problems as the brain drain arise.

Mr. Moyle: That side of the problem does not impress me, if it means that the hon. Gentleman is afraid that the population will gradually change in colour. All I would say is that we must keep within the country a sufficient number of skilled people to maintain our services and to give us the standard of living to which we have become accustomed.
There are practical problems where the races meet. The relationship between the indigenous and the immigrant population on London Transport has always been very good, but it would be beyond human nature as we know it if some London busmen had not at some time thought that if there were not so many immigrants, their wages would be higher than they are. Having made that reflection, it would be remarkable if they did not feel slightly bitter.
Then there is the matter of education. There are schools in my constituency where the number of immigrant children is rapidly approaching a very high proportion. When it reaches a certain proportion there is no doubt that the character of the education begins to change. No longer is one trying to produce British children for the British way of life. The whole system of education is becoming distorted in the direction of trying to accommodate children, many of whom cannot speak the language, to the British way of life.
There is the problem of housing, and probably the matter shows up more sharply here than anywhere else. In warmer climates it is possible for more people to live in a house than is convenient or possible in this country. If houses are purchased by immigrants in residential areas, they tend to become overcrowded. Less regard is paid to domestic living. It may be that one house begins to deteriorate, and people around are afraid that the value of their properties will decrease. To someone who finds that the value of his house is likely to deteriorate, this is a serious problem. An investment in the purchase of a house is probably the largest single transaction undertaken by the majority of people.
Many immigrants have been encouraged to take out mortgages to purchase residential property in areas as a way of keeping them off the council housing lists. In this respect, they have been encouraged to take mortgages beyond their financial capacity to bear. This again leads to problems and tensions. On the other hand, it is difficult to eradicate the impression among the indigenous population that a lot of immigrants deliberately overcrowd their properties so that the local council will have compassion and re-house them. Personally, I do not think that that is true, because they tend to inhabit their houses more thickly than we do because that is the way of life to which they have become accustomed in warmer climates. But it is difficult to convince British citizens of that point of view, and that again causes trouble.
In my borough there is a waiting list of between 8,000 and 9,000 families for council houses. If more people come into the country and want to settle in Lewisham, they will be added to the list, and there will be a natural reaction amongst many local British citizens that competition for houses is difficult enough as it is without people being allowed to come from overseas to intensify the position and make it more difficult.
Basically, we do ourselves a great disservice if we ignore those problems. If we believe in racial equality, they must be solved before we allow the doors of our country to be opened wider to let in more coloured immigrants and people from the outer Commonwealth, with their different ways of living.
I appreciate the risk that I am running in supporting the Bill along these lines. It means that I am saying that these people are different from us. I accept that that is the basis of the racialist case. I appreciate that in supporting the Bill, I may be thought to be contributing to increased racial feeling. On the other hand, I would be less than responsible if I did not look at the other side of the coin and realise that if we allow an uncontrolled influx of immigrants, the racial situation may be sharpened and intensified and made far worse than it would be if we support the Bill and strengthen


the principle of control which we introduced in 1965 and have maintained fairly firmly ever since.
However, the matter cannot be left there. I was very encouraged by some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West and by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). When one can travel from Mombassa to London as quickly as one can from London to Edinburgh if one chooses the right form of transport, it is living in cloud-cuckoo-land to think that people in this country can carry on living in complete isolation from the other races of the world. As the years go by, more and more will they be forced to mix with the populations of other races and climes, whether they like it or not, and we had better start getting ourselves acclimatised to the idea now.
That is one of the reasons why I find the public utterances of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) so obnoxious. He strives to give the impression that we can insulate ourselves from these forces by legislation. Not only is it obnoxious, but totally unrealistic. Legislation may provide us with insulation for a time, but we shall have to face the problem more and more as the years go by.
I want to join with other right hon. and hon. Members in saying that the country's reaction to the problem over the years has been less than satisfactory. For some years we have a period of inertia in which the immigrant problem builds up into the ghettoes in our cities. Then something takes place and we have a panic reaction, or the impression of a panic reaction, with the introduction of legislation of a negative kind to stop up a particular loophole. Then we have a further period of inertia. We cannot go on doing this sort of thing. We must set up within the Home Office a planning department on racial problems. We must consider the problems. We must try to study the social problems of dispersing these ghettoes and spreading the coloured and immigrant population around the rest of the country so that they can be assimilated and get used to the different aspects of our way of life.
Having decided to be firmly paternalistic in the way in which we have admitted people into this country, we should

be very paternalistic possibly after they have come in. I should like to see assimilation courses to the way of life here. I should like to see, as they have in Holland, planned dispersal of the immigrants throughout the country to lessen social tensions. If this were done, before many years passed I believe that we could assimilate a great deal more of the immigrants and accommodate them with less strain and be well on the way towards producing a multi-racial society.
The impression I got—and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can give me a different impression—is that there is no long-term planning, research and forethought in the Home Office on these tricky subjects. I admit that we have set up various racial councils, semi-public and semi-private, but they appear to lack the resources and power to deal with the problem in a modern scientific fashion.
There are two ways in which the Bill could be improved. Section 2, for instance, as I read it, means that the child of an unmarried mother could not be admitted into this country by right if the mother had preceded him. An Amendment to the Bill making the entry of the child a right, would be a considerable improvement.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having acceded to the real concern for an appeals procedure. We often attack hon. Gentlemen opposite for being in favour of economy in general and expenditure in particular. I must confess that on this issue I am in favour of restrictions in general. Yet in almost every individual case with which I have to deal, I find the restrictions very hard indeed and I wish to break them down. Therefore, an appeals procedure is absolutely essential and I thank my right hon. Friend for giving us some hope that we may get it before very long.

7.23 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I start by paying tribute to the opening speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), coupled with the opening speech of the Home Secretary. They both made important contributions to the development of opinion in this country at a time when we are contemplating a far-reaching extension of the Race Relations Act. That is a prize of great worth and a lot of


strain should be tolerated across the House in the search for a consensus in the run up to the Bill.
I have taken a deliberate step in helping to frame a reasoned Amendment to the Bill. I feel strongly on two issues. The first is the need for control. This is an obligation that we owe to all the people in this country, including the immigrant who have come to stay among us. The Bill seeks to produce controls, which could, I believe, be effective. For that reason I shall find it difficult to vote against the Bill. However, there are features of the Bill to which I and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who may decide differently from me when they are considering their votes, take the strongest objection.
It is not pleasant for anybody in the House to take part in a retreat from pledges which we have made in the grant of British passports and the undertakings we gave to communities in Kenya at the time of independence. It is difficult at short notice to know what to propose instead. Anyone who has been part of nationalism working its way out in newly independent countries of Africa will understand the pressures upon the President of Kenya to make room for autochthonous Kenyans and to find them employment in the whole range of the economy of the country. When, as a consequence, Asians in Kenya, who have been there for two or three generations, are under great pressure, we have to give special consideration to implementing the rights we granted with their passports and the pledges which we gave.
I was impressed, as no doubt other right hon. and hon. Members were, by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Frederic Harris) who has long experience and close association with these matters in Kenya. I find myself in much the same dilemma. I also speak from a background of having worked for 20 years in Africa.
First, I cannot contemplate taking part in actions which would expose to threat all the work that has been done in Britain during the last two years to improve race relations—hard work done in difficult circumstances by people from all sections of our community. Great

progress has been made since the Race Relations Act was passed two years ago. I look forward to a consensus, or as near as we can get to it, for the extension of that Act. But, if we allowed a large increase in the present rate of Commonwealth immigrant inflow, we should be jeopardising the prospects of willing co-operation from people in the areas most affected by intense settlement of immigrants. We should not allow that situation to develop.
Second, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider how far he can go to meet a demand, that has been made from all sides of the House, that those who hold British passports should be given some priority for the rights which we have granted them.
I hope also that he will look again at the figure that the Home Secretary mentioned—the 1,500 Asian heads of families which the Government proposed as an initial step to admit in addition to the ordinary quotas.
I have said before in this House that I believe we should reduce the total flow of immigrants into this country. I still believe that to be true. I believe that we should make a substantial reduction in the number of voucher holders well below the 5,000, give or take a few, who will come in this year. We ought to do this because of the situation which has arisen in Kenya, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go some way to meet us by offering to reduce, in favour of Kenyan Asians, the number of those from elsewhere who are without passports but who are seeking vouchers to come and work here.
I shall find it difficult to vote for the Bill tonight because of the depreciation of British passports, and the going back on pledges that we have given. I do not believe that the Home Secretary's undertakings have gone far enough to meet, in a reasonable way, the obligations that we have to Asians in Kenya. I do not believe that they have gone as far as our situation and our manoeuvre room allow us to go. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance on these two points.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mahon: I believe that the Government have been placed under ignorant and pernicious


pressures to introduce this Bill. Sadly, the Government have succumbed, and I cannot support them. In my opinion the Bill is white man's treachery.
These people have no rights recognised by the Governments of India or Pakistan. They are British citizens, carrying British passports issued by the British High Commissioner. Our end, then, is to deprive citizens of fundamental rights. What is worse, we are breaking our word. It is a shameful betrayal, and yet the real horror of the Bill lies far deeper.
This small island once prided itself on being the home of the free. Are we now supposed to be proud of a Britain which scrambles into this sort of legislation in the second month of a year dedicated around the globe to the recognition of human rights? Let these victims of Africanisation bang at the door of the European Human Rights Commission, or the International Court, for if we approve the Bill they will become the victims of a wicked repudiation.
With easy lip-service to the honour and freedom of Britain, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Powell), have whipped our country into a state of unparalleled prejudice. How right these people in Kenya were to rush to the booking office as right hon. Gentlemen opposite spouted their race-ridden, race-laden theories. The number of would-be immigrants to this country has been maliciously exaggerated to support their arguments. Every hon. Member knows that the number of East African Asians involved is considerably less than the 200,000 figure which has been bandied about in support of the Bill.
Let us reflect, let this Labour Government in particularly reflect, that these people are coming here because they now believe that Britain can help them and their families. I was brought up to believe that the betterment of the individual and his family was the root premise of Socialism, but the Government would have us believe that the rivers of Socialism, which I had hoped were more plentiful, as did my father before me, are already drying up.
If the decision to introduce the Bill was based on ignorance alone, we would

be forgiven. By allowing ourselves, as we are, to be rushed into legislation according to savage Tory prejudice, we can never hope to be forgiven. After this the Britain of high principle and of international decency and decorum is solemnly deceased. The whole world has learned that we have virtually closed our door to the black man.
To be prejudiced is always to be weak. It no longer becomes us to sugar that prejudice with further hypocrisy. Instead of asking the nation to adapt itself to the existence of a half million-, or three-quarter million-strong coloured community in Britain, the Government now propose to feed us with their own official brand of discrimination and prejudice.
We are told that we cannot cope with more coloured immigrants, that there are not enough schools for them, that there are not enough houses, that there are psychological problems, that there are ghettoes, that there are too few jobs, and that they cannot mix. These are the excuses for the exile of the twentieth-century immigrant.
My forefathers were nineteenth-century immigrants to this country, and there were no schools, no jobs, and no houses for them. The Irish, driven from their own land by famine, moved in droves and lived in ghettoes, but they made their way. They improved the lot of their families. They learned to love and to defend the land of their adoption. Nothing has changed. In the light of present-day legislation, if the skins of the Irish had been green instead of white, they would have met a similar reception as the Asians are meeting today.

"Through the night of doubt and sorrow,
Onward goes the pilgrim band,
Singing songs of exultation,
Marching to the promised land."
That is no longer to be the fate of the twentieth-century immigrant. This promised land no longer approves of the ebony skin, and with this Bill that is official.
The theory of Britain for Britons is a retogressive doctrine which flies in the face of history and must be opposed head on. The Bill is a deplorable concession to racialism. Unscruplous men have used this issue to trigger public anxiety. Good people's legitimate fears and prejudices have been wickedly fed and exploited.
I believe that as every hon. Member is being forced to face this issue now, the time has come for all people to examine their consciences on the issue of colour. I ask the House to bear with me as I pursue shortly a hypothetical, but not an impossible analogy.
If the initial offenders in this sad sequel had been not the Government of Kenya, but the Government of Spain, and if the victims of ruthless measures had been not the Asians of East Africa, but the people of Gilbraltar, and if to a man it was 30,000 sun-soaked Gibraltarians who now sought entry to Britain, can we honestly believe that the Government would have resorted to this sort of legislation? The question at stake on this Bill is Britain's present and future stance on the issue of colour. There is no escaping this. There are two paths. We can opt for bans, restrictions and controls, call them what we will, or, as a Government, we can ask every man and woman, black or white, in this country to face up to his innate and hidden prejudices. We can ask them to be of good will and to show lavish generosity and make difficult sacrifices. We face primarily a moral issue and we are being urged by our own Government to pursue an immoral course.
The immigration policy which this Government should have pursued was the regionalisation of our newcomers. There are still dozens of towns and even cities in Britain where the immigrant population is a long way short of one per cent., and most are in the South and the Midlands. There are scores of cities and towns whose official policy is to exclude immigrants from the right to a place on a council housing list. If there are social tensions in Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Notting Hill, Britain has made them. I have come to the conclusion that the Bill is not only morally wrong and legally untenable but also politically inept.
The East African Asian is the very person who we should at this stage of our history be welcoming. Unlike many Indian and Pakistani immigrants who have made their homes in Britain, they are English-speaking townspeople, many of them educated to secondary school level and beyond. If our present immigrant community has in many ways so far failed us, it is in this respect. From

among their own members, they have failed to produce enough men and women who were prepared, whatever the cost, to go it alone. We need more pioneers among our immigrants, people who are equipped and willing to move from the traditional centres to new towns and cities. I believe that many of these people from East Africa are of that fettle. The evidence available to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants supports this.
The Clause which curtails the right of dependent children to join a single parent is alarmingly merciless. This Bill, gushing racialism as it does, will lose the respect of more people around the world than any legislation undertaken by this or any other British Government this century.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: I find this speech one of the most difficult which I have ever had to make in my 15 years as a Member of the House. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) will forgive me if I do not follow him, because I do not want to be tempted into controversy if I can avoid it nor to have to answer some of his points with which I fundamentally disagree.
I never thought that the day would come when I would find difficulty in supporting a Measure introduced by a Government designed to regulate the rate of entry of immigrants to this country. I have lived with this problem in my constituency, as have many other hon. Members, for a number of years and I have seen the problem developing. One hon. Member opposite gave some examples of the problems and tensions in constituencies to which the flow of immigrants, from whatever source, is too great for the community to assimilate.
The House will recall that I recently tabled an Amendment to the early day Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) explaining in some detail why I thought it necessary at this stage to slow down the rate of immigration. This was supported by hon. Members from both sides who live with this problem and see it from day to day. We sometimes debate matters as if we lived in a hothouse, isolated from the rest of the country. We must take into


consideration every time that we debate a Measure of this vital importance the feelings of the people whom we represent throughout Britain. I have been very struck by the keen interest which the general public have displayed in the Bill.
I would tell the House of an experience of mine today. My agent telephoned me to say that, throughout the morning, constituents had been calling at and telephoning the Conservative office in High Wycombe to ascertain my views on the Bill. Never, in all my experience in the House, can I remember this happening before. One or two people might have tried to contact me about a piece of legislation, but never before have I known this number of inquiries on a Bill of this kind. It did not happen before the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was debated, although at that time about 8 per cent. of the population of High Wycombe was composed of immigrants. It has not happened during our various debates on this matter under the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts.
Why has it happened now? Because my constituents see day by day all the effects of the recent flood of immigration concentrating in certain parts of the country. If it was spread all over the country, the problem would be by no means as great, but the immigrants concentrate on certain towns and areas. Whereas, when I spoke on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill of 1962, indeed, when I spoke in November, 1963, on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, High Wycombe had a population of under 50,000, of whom 8 per cent. were immigrants; now, the population is 55,000, of whom between 10 and 12 per cent. are immigrants. I do not have to tell hon. Members what this means.
It would be the same if they came from Yugoslavia or Poland. I mention those two countries in particular, because High Wycombe experienced this problem in the days immediately after the war, when a large number of Poles, the survivors of General Anders' army, and a number of Yugoslavs settled in High Wycombe. They created similar tensions, but these tensions have now gone and the people have been assimilated, because the immigration did not continue. After two or three years, no more

came in. They could be integrated very easily with the population, they intermarried, and people got used to them. Also, the numbers were very small by comparison with those coming in now—[Interruption.]—as the hon. Member says, and it is a very good point, one of the problems of such groups who form a new community in a town is that, if they are easily identifiable, they come constantly to the notice of the community.
People from European or near-European stock are not so easily identifiable. The Irish who come here to live, particularly in certain areas, are not easily identifiable compared with those who come from Asia and the West Indies. Wherever they live, the local inhabitants can identify them. This tends to become impressed on people's minds, who then say that there are a number of strangers in their midst. They say that a number of immigrants are coming into the town. They fear that they will be overwhelmed by them. Wrongly or rightly, these views are held and we must be aware of them.
When 50 per cent. or more of immigrant children make up classes in local primary schools, there is bound to be agitation, and this particularly applies when immigrant mothers get priority in maternity hospitals, particularly with the pressure that exists for hospital accommodation. By the nature of things, immigrant mothers are bound to have greater priority for maternity beds because the conditions in which they live make it necessary for them to be taken into hospital for their confinement. This causes all sorts of pressures and tensions which we have been trying desperately for years to avoid.
For some time in my constituency we have had a consultative committee on which there are representatives of West Indians and other immigrant peoples, along with spokesmen for the various welfare organisations in the town. The purpose of this committee is to tackle the problems as they arise and before they get out of hand. Up to now the committee has had a great deal of success and has promoted a reasonable amount of good will between all sections of the community. However, if immigration goes on at the present rate, I do not think that this good will can be held. There is


bound to be an explosion among the indigenous population, who feel that they are, in a sense, being overwhelmed in their own town and country. This view may be illogical and irrational, but we must accept that it exists and accept that human beings are what they are and not what we want them to be.
For these reasons I am tempted to support the Bill. I say that with a heavy heart, because what we are doing is devaluing the British passport. One can enter into all sorts of legal arguments about this—about whether or not the passports were intended to give a right of entry into Britain—and while it is important to discover the true legal position, and what the Asians in Kenya thought that they were getting when they opted to rely on the British passport rather than opt for Kenyan citizenship, I support the plea that the Government must reconsider their whole handling of the matter.
The first right of entry into Britain, if right there be, should go to those who hold British passports. If we are to restrict the amount of immigration—and throughout my career in the House I have been calling for such restriction—let us restrict it to those with entitlement, but we must restrict the number of vouchers that are issued. This is the point that Liberal Party spokesmen have been making.
However, in taking these steps, do not let us kid ourselves that we are completely solving the problem. We have been playing with the issue for far too long. Even if we pass this Measure—as I am sure we shall—and even if we to some extent restrict the number of immigrants and their dependants who will come here—remembering that, despite the restriction, a large number of people will continue to come in—we will not solve the problem which faces not only us but the world in general.
A large number of people, for various reasons—including poverty, a desire to improve their condition of life, fear of a lack of security, a desire to find religious or political freedom—want to leave their homes and live elsewhere. Apparently most of them are, for one reason or another, attracted to these islands. With the best will in the world, we cannot absorb all these people and, for this

reason, other countries must play their part.
It is against this background that we must consider what part the Commonwealth can play. What other Commonwealth nation gives the sort of right of access to immigrants that we give? Should not other nations be asked to make a contribution, particularly those with much more room to accommodate an influx of population?

Mr. Molloy: Will the hon. Gentleman impress on his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who has argued that the Bill is necessary to prevent a flood of Asians coming here from Kenya, that the Act for which he was responsible did not give such an authority and that it is that sort of argument that is causing much of the problem and anxiety among the Asians in Kenya?

Mr. Hall: I am finding it hard enough to make my own speech, without having to answer for my right hon. Friend.
There are certain things that the Government should consider. Even if we pass the Bill, we will not pass the problem. It will still remain to be solved. An inquiry is being conducted into the economic implications of immigration. On several occasions I have asked about this inquiry but have been told that its report is not yet available. That report should be made available as soon as possible so that we may debate it.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) tabled an Early Day Motion drawing attention to some of the population problems which will arise in Britain in the coming 30 years. With that in mind, we should consider how many immigrants we can reasonably take, giving them all the facilities and help necessary in the next quarter of a century. However, that still will not deal with the main problem of the desire of so many people to leave the countries in which they live to go elsewhere. For this reason, I urge the Government to consult other Governments with a view to obtaining help to solve this problem.
We cannot overwhelm ourselves with the large numbers of people who, however worthy, are alien, have alien cultures, different temperaments, totally difference backgrounds and habits and different ways of life. If we allow them


to come in at a rate which is faster than we can absorb them, we will create a growing fear in the minds of our own people who, rightly or wrongly, say that before the end of the century there will be large minorities of alien people in various parts of the country, and they fear that the British way of life will change. That fear exists in the minds of many people and, for this reason, entry must be regulated. We must realise the pressures that exist and, in consultation with other countries, see what can be done to solve this in terms of a world problem.
I want to see preference given to those with British passports because we do not want to devalue our word any more than it has already been lowered in the world. I want to see the Government taking measures which will prevent racial tension from being created in this country. I appreciate that this is a difficult human problem. Those of us who know anything about it must have the greatest compassion and sympathy for the many thousands of people who feel desperately unhappy about their present lives in the countries in which they are living and want to live elsewhere. However, we must feel the same compassion for those who fear what might result if there is completely free entry. We accept that those who wish to leave the countries in which they are living must feel a tremendous fear in their desire to move, but our first duty must be to our own people and to the future of this country, including the immigrants already here who are making an excellent contribution to our future. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on some of the points that have been made so that we may support the Bill with clearer consciences than some of us feel at present.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: A notable feature of the debate has been that, with one or two exceptions, it has been conducted in a calm and dispassionate manner. However, that is no reason why we should not speak our minds frankly and express the views which we sincerely hold. It is an hon. Member's responsibility to put not only his own views but those of his constituents and to express the problems of his constituency. For that reason I admit frankly that the Bill, distasteful though it

may be in many ways, is not only necessary but essential.
The Ministry of Labour and the Home Office officials know that in the three and a half years I have been a Member of the House I have been unceasing in my efforts on behalf of West Indians, Indians, Pakistanis, Yugoslavs, Poles, Cypriots and Greeks, many of whom live in my constituency. I have managed to persuade the various Government Departments on a number of occasions to allow people and their dependants to enter this country, and I shall continue to do so, to the best of my ability, but I must face realities and the facts of life as they are in Huddersfield.
Certainly the transport system, the hospital services and the night shift in the woollen mills in the West Riding of Yorkshire would collapse if we did not have these people from the West Indies and from India and Pakistan. We are a town of 150,000-odd that has from the early 1950s absorbed immigrants from Eire, Poland, Hungary and many other parts of Europe, and we have managed to create a pretty good relationship between the various communities.
Before 1958 there were very few immigrants from the Commonwealth in Huddersfield, but following 1958 we were the first place in the country to set up a special school for the education of immigrant children. There is a book called "Spring Grove—the Education of Immigrant Children", written by the headmaster Trevor Burgin, which discusses how best to handle the problem of immigrant children. In April, 1968, Mr. Burgin takes on the job of organiser of immigrant children in Huddersfield. But the schools are just not there to deal with the tremendous problem we have at the moment. We are trying by all the means at our disposal to meet the increasing demand with the resources we have, and I appeal to the Government to recognise that in places such as Huddersfield and others the local authority is called upon to bear tremendous expense for special classes, special teachers, special books and all the special equipment required.
In this constituency or county borough of 150,000 there are between 14,000 and 15,000 immigrants of all races. About 10,000 come from Commonwealth countries. In answer to a Parliamentary Question, it was stated that in the whole of


Wales there are only 10,000 immigrants from the Commonwealth, and yet there is that number in the Borough of Huddersfield representing 7 per cent. of the total population.
I am finding—and this is borne out in many other constituencies—that once there is a movement of people from India and Pakistan to Britain one gets a migration of a community, a movement of people from one particular part—the Punjab in the case of Huddersfield—and they move virtually en bloc over a period of time. I am concerned with the impact this movement makes, not only on the British child but also on the immigrant child itself. In the County Borough of Huddersfield at the moment there are just over 21,000 children in school, and when I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science for the number of immigrant pupils as a percentage of all pupils the figures in January, 1967, showed that Huddersfield was higher than any other county borough in the West Riding of Yorkshire—7· 2 per cent. That was in January, 1967, and it has increased to 10 per cent. by 1968. The figure for infant classes was 12 per cent. I am told by the chief education officer that we have now over 2,000 immigrant children in our schools—just over 1,000 Asians and just over 1,000 West Indians with a normal weekly intake of 10 new pupils. In the last fortnight this has been running at the rate of 26 new pupils per week from Commonwealth countries.
Let me indicate how this problem has grown in intensity and why I feel I am in honour bound to support the Bill. In 1963 the percentage of immigrant children in schools in Huddersfield was 1· 8 per cent.—350 children. By 1964 it had gone up to 3 per cent.—600 children. By 1965 it had risen to 4· 4 per cent.—or 900 children in the schools. Now in 1968 we have over 2,000 children in the schools—about 10 per cent.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Would my hon. Friend indicate whether he is including in his immigrant children those born in this country?

Mr. Lomas: This has been borne in mind. The point I wish to make is that we expect this to increase. We are dealing with entry into primary schools. Some

children were born of English-speaking parents; some were born of parents who cannot speak much English and attend classes which the local authority runs for them. We expect the intake to increase by at least 500 a year over the next six years, to a level of 5,000 immigrants in schools by 1974. This is a problem we must face if we are to ensure that all the immigrants born in this country or coming to this country to join their parents, and the British children, are to have a decent education.
There is a language problem, and the West Indians in many instances who speak a Creole language—a bastardised form of English—are the most difficult to whom to teach English. We have done all we can as a local authority to combat this. My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Board of Trade—the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu)—many years ago was agitating for a liaison officer, and only recently has the local authority appointed one. We have special committees set up to try to integrate these people into the life of the town, but because of the housing shortage—this has been referred to in other speeches—they are going as a group into one or two particular quarters of the town and those areas are becoming ghettoes. I am talking of a town where one in four of the houses has no bath and one in five no toilet.
We are fortunate in the borough in having an unemployment rate of something like 1· 3 per cent. If that level of unemployment rose by any substantial amount there would indeed be racial tensions on a very big scale indeed. This is something we all wish to avoid. I am also concerned to avoid that these people who are coming to our country and whom we are wishing to integrate shall be treated not as second-class citizens—because they are that already in the West Riding of Yorkshire since they are doing the jobs which the white people in the West Riding will not do—but that, if more and more come, they will become not second-class but third- and fourth-class citizens. We hope to try to stop this in some way. At the moment they are doing jobs the white people will not do.
Play has been made about the number of people who come into this country as


voucher holders. In HANSARD on 19th February, 1968, the statement was made that 4,978 voucher holders came into Britain in 1967, among a total of 61,377, including students. It worked out at about 52,000 dependants of the 5,000 voucher holders.
But it was not the true picture; it was quite misleading information. If we were to stop the voucher holders coming into this country tomorrow, there would be an appreciable inflow of dependants for the next three, four or five years. Every month at my "surgery" people ask me if I can persuade the Government to allow their dependants in or to tell me they intend to send for their dependants as a right. These people have been settled in the area since 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964. Therefore, this is the backlog, and a ratio of ten to one is not accurate, but it indicates that this is a problem which will be with us for some time.
Both parties when in power misjudged the situation. In 1948, the present position was not conceived, and in 1958 it was not a problem. Only as the years have rolled on through the 1960s have we realised that this is a problem of integration. I agree with the spokesman of the Liberal Party that there should have been a more positive approach to the problem of immigration and of settling these people in this country. The answer to the problem is not just this Bill. I believe that when people from the Commonwealth want to come here they should register the number of dependants whom they intend to bring to this country so that we can plan for the number of people likely to come here. There should be a time factor by which they can do this so that we know when they will come here.
I am glad that the Home Secretary announced that an ad hoc committee is to go into the question of appeals. But there should be proper machinery for this because justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. What the Government and the country must do—and this goes for hon. Members on both sides of the House—politics apart—is to recognise that we cannot have people moving from communities in India, Pakistan, East Africa and other places and coming to a particular community in this country without some

control. A way must be found to ensure that when people land in this country they can be spread throughout the country. In that way, they can be absorbed and integrated. But a distribution of 23,000 in Scotland, 10,000 in Wales and 10,000 to 11,000 in Huddersfield is not fair by any standards. The Government must take the problem in hand and try to do something about it.
In my view, the Bill, although distasteful and one which I do not like and which I feel has been forced upon us, is necessary and essential if we are to stop racial tensions getting out of hand. It is the fault of both parties when in power. I hope that we shall recognise that we cannot continue without contingency planning. The pure in heart in the House and outside it will brand people like myself as racialists and goodness knows what else. That is not true. Many people who hold my view have worked as hard as anyone else on behalf of people, no matter what their colour, race or creed. The Liberal Party can pose as the great moralists and pure in heart if they like. But does this problem exist in any one of the twelve constituencies which Liberal Members represent? I doubt it very much. They can be as pure as the driven snow if they live in areas which are not affected by this problem
What I hope the Bill will do is to give a breathing space and a chance to local authorities throughout the country to build the schools, hospitals and houses needed and to give us time to make preparations for the friends and the people whom we know wish to come here and are entitled to come here. Time is not on our side at the moment, and that is why we must have this Bill and why I shall go through the Lobby in support of the Government tonight.

8.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: To me, Clause 1 is both obnoxious and ineffective—so obnoxious and so ineffective that I must object to it on three grounds. It is so obnoxious and ineffective that it discounts the good which will be done by the later Clauses.
My three grounds for objecting to it are these. First, it erodes further the value of the British passport already partially devalued by the 1962 Act, but


now to be further debased and in an objectionably selective manner. Secondly, its intention is racial discrimination. If these people were Channel Islanders of French extraction who were being forced to come here because of some political pressure, not one word of protest would be heard. Thirdly, it will not be effective.
We have heard talk of quotas and a figure of 1,500 immigrants a year has been mentioned. We are only too well aware of all the loopholes and subterfuges of the past, some of which the later Clauses to which I have no objection aim to block. So long as the law is partial and hedged about with conditions and exceptions so complex that they are difficult to administer, there will be channels through which the clever and unscrupulous will find a way. We have seen plenty of this in recent years. In any case, if a quota of 1,500 immigrants a year with their dependants were to be scrupulously observed, it would gradually build up a racial group or augment an existing one. Continuing quotas of people not of British extraction, from wherever they may come, are altering the nature of our race and creating centres—some newspapers and some hon. Members today have already designated them as ghettoes, with all that word's horrible connotation—where people who are not the same as the rest of us in colour, in racial origin and sometimes in religion hang together.
I have here my youngest son's passport. Like any current British passport, on the front is printed
British Passport United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
The preamble inside includes the words
request and require in the name of Her Britannic Majesty to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance".
On page 1 his national status is designated as:
British subject: citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies".
It so happens that when his former passport expired my son was serving in the Royal Navy in Singapore. His passport was given on 15th November, 1966, at Singapore and is signed for and carries the seal of the British High Commissioner in Singapore.
The early part of my life was spent in the Royal Navy. Had it not been for the war, my son could very easily have been born outside the United Kingdom—for example in Hong Kong or in Malaya. I was born in South Africa. It so happens that my father was born in Britain, but he might well have been born in South Africa, as was my mother. If that were the case, my son's standing with his present passport, if the Bill were passed, would be on all fours with that of these people of Asian origin coming from Kenya which the Bill, among other things, sets out to exclude. If this were so, on his next return from service abroad, my son might be excluded from entry into the United Kingdom under this amendment to Section 1 of the principal Act if these simple and by no means unusual circumstances were the case. Under subsection (2A) of this Clause, was he, was his father—that is me—was his father's father—that is my father—born in the United Kingdom? As I have shown, the answer to all three of those question could be, no. Under paragraph (b) the next question is, were or are any of the three of us naturalised in the United Kingdom? Although we all three have or have had British passports none of us at any time took out naturalisation powers. Under paragraph (c), none of us was adopted in the United Kingdom. Under paragraph (d) none of us has ever been registered under previous Acts. I need go no further to demonstrate the silliness of the proposal in Clause 1.
I am one of the few—I believe perhaps the only—Member of this House who supports and believes in apartheid in South Africa, but I am not what the Americans call a racist. Conditions in South Africa are very different from what they are here. Pressures exist there which, so far, are not apparent in Britain. It may, then, seem strange to hon. Members that I oppose racial discrimination in any form in Britain. Clause 1 of this Bill is intended to legalise a racially discriminatory measure. What may be right for South Africa is not right for Britain, and vice versa. We have in this country, quite correctly and logically I believe, because of our Commonwealth connection, chosen an integrated society where all our residents have equal rights and equal obligations. That being so, we


must abide by it, and not indulge in hypocrisy to suit the expediency of the moment.
Both the Government of which I had the honour to be a member and the present Government have faced an awful dilemma in this matter of immigration, and both have tried to trim their sails to the winds of popular clamour. Both have been wrong, and if this Bill goes through both will continue to be wrong. I fully acknowledge my share in that guilt.
We in this House must realise that we are dealing with human beings. Politics is the stuff of human nature. One of the regrettable features of human nature is discrimination against those who differ from the majority, and it leads to nationalism in minorities. In past history the greatest manifestation of this flaw in the human character was religious discrimination. Today it is racial discrimination, particularly as regards colour.
In recent years we in this House have welcomed—and I sincerely mean welcomed in a personal sense—a Welsh National hon. Member and a Scottish National hon. Lady—I fear I see neither of them here—

An Hon. Member: That is not surprising.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: —which only goes to show that the old unity between the three parts of the Kingdom is breaking down and nationalism is rearing its head. Without any discourtesy to either hon. Member or to those whom they represent I say that that is bad for Britain as a whole, because nationalism can, and often does, become racialism.
In the same way we must face up to the fact that racialism with regard to colour is here and cannot be eradicated overnight or swept under some convenient carpet just by passing another Bill in this House. There is a colour bar in parts of Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and many other cities in the Kingdom. Nothing we can do will alter that fact. It is a fact we have got to face. If we allow the immigration of people of differing colours and races to continue at its present rate, and reduce it only in the small degree this Bill sets out to do, then this problem will be aggravated, and

feelings in those teeming cities will get worse. This Parliament can pass measures which prevent and punish racial discrimination till we are all blue in the face, but that will not stop it. In our hearts, I believe, we all know this, but many of us will not admit it. I am really scared that unless the Government put a final stop to immigration of even moderate numbers of people of races differing from our own we shall soon be faced with a situation as bad as that which obtains during the hot summers in New York, Chicago and, more recently, in Detroit.
My solution is a simple and a radical one. Withdraw this Bill, bring in one which will restrict most severely all immigration from whatever source, irrespective of colour or race. We are already a crowded island. I have heard people on both sides of the House disputing that, but we are a crowded island, and demonstrably in present times we have insufficient resources to support ourselves in the world. We lavish sums we cannot afford on many idealistic projects, without ensuring first the earning of the money to be spent. Immigration of men and women, unless they have very special skills, constitute a further burden.
I could make three simple, easily administered exceptions to my Cessation of Immigration Act. First, anyone of reputable character could enter the United Kingdom for a visit of up to six months. Second, authentic students with qualifications justifying courses of education or apprenticeship here would be given permits with a time limit. Third, men or women whose work or business was of particular merit to our industry or economy would be allowed to enter on a permit limited in time but renewable under reasonable conditions. No one else would be allowed in under any pretext whatsoever.
I acknowledge that this would cause dismay to a large number of people. I can visualise Australians and Canadians objecting strongly, but I would remind them that their immigration laws are fairly stringent, and they have vast, sparsely populated areas with raw materials of value and tremendous development potential, whereas we are a group of tiny islands which, in my opinion, are considerably over-populated.
Those are the reasons I shall vote against this Bill, because of the inadequacy and injustice of it, particularly Clause 1. I acknowledge the need for the later Clauses. I entreat the Government to pay heed to enacting laws of the nature of the alternative I have described.
My theme is that if we are constrained to dispense rough justice—and Clause 1 does that; it is justice so rough that it ceases to be justice—we must dipense it consistently for all and not for one.

8.30 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) complains about the injustice of the Bill and then makes a speech that would create great injustice without making any proposals for dealing with our responsibilities and the injustices that would be created by the policy that he would like to see pursued. It is not enough to say that one is against the Bill; from hon. Members opposite we expect to hear what they are for and how they would deal with the problem that has arisen largely from legislation and actions of the Conservative Government in the 1950s and in 1962.
In the run-up to this debate we have had a great deal of hypocrisy in the Press. The Government have been attacked for introducing the Bill. I suspect that if it had been introduced by a Conservative Government we would not have seen those articles in the Press. Nevertheless, a great deal of feeling has been stirred up, to which hon. Members opposite have contributed.
I suppose that everyone knows the name of my constituency—at least, they know the name Wolverhampton. There is often a good deal of confusion as to which hon. Member represents which seat. I find this extraordinary. I do not know how anyone could confuse me with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). The right hon. Gentleman never makes a speech about this problem in the House; he makes his speeches outside, and he always manages to do so before a General Election or a local election. His speeches are always reported widely in the Press, especially the local Press.
His latest effort was a speech made in Walsall. I think that he was speaking in the constituency of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid). There he spread alarm and despondency about the numbers of immigrant children in Wolverhampton schools. I agree that many Wolverhampton schools have a high percentage of coloured children. In his Walsall speech the right hon. Gentleman said that a constituent of his had complained to him that her child was the only non-immigrant child in her class. Challenged to mention the name of the school so that the facts could be investigated, the right hon. Gentleman has consistently refused to do so.
There are always two sides to every problem. The school concerned has over 80 per cent. of coloured children, but I find that of the 352 children on the roll, although there are about 230 coloured children, only 52 are immigrant children. All the rest are British born and bred, and proud of it, I am told. They are just as entitled to go to school in Wolverhampton as the right hon. Gentleman's children would be to go to State schools there if he chose to send them and chose to live in his constituency.
This pernicious and malicious stuff that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman has made things extremely difficult in Wolverhampton. Recently the Sunday Telegraph contained an article on Wolverhampton, entitled "The Town That Lost Hope".

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No. wonder ! [Interruption.]

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. This is vastly entertaining to all of us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but does it bear on the issues raised by the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Nothing that I have heard the hon. Lady say as yet has been out of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the hon. Lady allow me?

Mrs. Short: No, she will not. It is not correct to say that Wolverhampton has yet lost hope. To say that it has is an insult to the teachers who are trying to cope with this problem and to all the organisations and bodies and I agree


that there are not enough of them—which are really trying to integrate our immigrant communities.
This is a difficult problem. I agree with those hon. Members who have pointed out the problems of housing and education. They are acute problems. Unless Wolverhampton receives some relief in respect of the constant numbers that are coming into the town it may well lose hope. It has not yet done so, but it may well do so unless there is some relief. That is one reason why I welcome the Bill.
We have nearly 400 children in Wolverhampton—and most of them are immigrant children—who are not able to get into our schools. Thousands of immigrant families are living in the seedier parts of the town—in the old, terrace houses, two up and two down, which ought to have been bulldozed years ago, which are 80 or more years old, and in which immigrant families live in very grossly overcrowded conditions. I cannot think that it profits anyone to bring families into such conditions.
If children of secondary school age—12 or 13 or 13½ years—are brought into a town in which school places cannot be found for them, those children have to wait for places. The present school leaving age is fifteen years, so those children may have only a few months at school. What are they to do when they leave school? They will perpetually be the people who do the dirty jobs which no one else wants. A racial discrimination Bill, which I very much hope will be brought forward by my right hon. Friend, will not change that position at all.
What is needed is a tremendously energetic Government programme to give far more help than has so far been given to those towns and those parts of the country where these problems exist. It is quite natural for immigrants from India, Pakistan, Kenya, or anywhere else to go to those parts where they have friends and relatives; they know that there they have a welcome. What help has been given so far by the Government is just chicken feed, and has not even attempted to start to deal with the problem. I hope that from the Treasury Bench we shall have a pledge that the Government will probvide money for housing, and money to build schools for these children who are not at the moment able to get any educa-

tion. That position affects the immigrant children and, obviously, children born in the town, too.
When I press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science for money for schools in the priority areas, on the lines of the Plowden proposals, I am told that the money is not there; it is not forthcoming. When I press for nursery education in those areas, so that at least the tiny children may be got out of unsatisfactory and often insanitary home conditions and children, white, and not white, can learn to live together and play together, I am told that we cannot afford it. We must be able to afford it—there is no argument about it. Unless we do afford it, we shall find that we create very serious problems making for more racial tension than now exists in many parts of the country. I make an urgent plea to my right hon. Friends to deal with this urgent problem now.
It seems quite incredible that the Conservative Government in 1962 left this loophole in the legislation, and it is quite incredible to me that no one ever spotted it until fairly recently, when we have had illegal attempts to evade the Act. The provision about apprehension within 24 hours was an open incitement to people to try to dodge the Act—and to those unscrupulous people who made money out of forging papers and organising the whole miserable traffic of illegal entry.
The Bill proposes to change the time lapse from 24 hours to 28 days, but I do not think that that will alter the position very much. Indeed, I wonder why it is necessary to have a time limit at all. I should have thought that if it were a criminal offence to enter the country illegally, to give an amnesty after a period of 24 hours or 28 days was not the solution. I ask my right hon. Friends to look at this provision again.
I am concerned about the position of people coming from Kenya or any other country who may be coming here seeking political asylum because of persecution. There may already be cases of that sort coming from Kenya, or it may well be that cases will arise in the near future which come into this category. Will my hon. Friend give an


assurance to the House that he will take powers to admit those persons over and above any quota number the House decides upon as a result of this Bill? I do not want those people to be part of the quota. They should be admitted whenever the need arises. I also ask my hon. Friend to look at the problem of those white Kenyans who may now be entitled to British passports but who are not of British origin. Will they be subject to the same regulations as Kenyans of Asian origin?
The Bill makes certain proposals on health grounds. To relieve the problem of large numbers of people waiting at the ports of entry to be seen by the port doctors and to prevent the overburdening of health services in towns such as Wolverhampton—which is under-doctored and where we have not enough general practitioners for the population—it would be better if medical certificates could be required to be obtained in the country of origin. Certain doctors should be authorised to provide those certificates, or it could be done through the medical staff in the High Commissioner's Office.
I emphasise that I am very concerned about the conditions to which we are bringing more immigrants into towns where we have a large immigrant population. We need to be much more energetic about finding long-term solutions for this. We need to have very much more consultation among Members of Parliament who are involved and the local authorities and the Ministries concerned. We have not enough of this exchange of information and experience. We need to do very much more.
We need to have a Commonwealth conference so that other countries of the Commonwealth may accept their share of responsibility for dealing with what fundamentally is a Commonwealth problem. It is not only our problem; other countries of the Commonwealth should find it possible to make a contribution. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including the Kenyan Government."] Including the Kenyan Government, I agree. I should like a Commonwealth conference to be called to discuss ways and means of channelling some of the displaced persons from Kenya and other parts of the Commonwealth to other Commonwealth

countries where there is a high standard of living, countries which can afford to offer better hospitality to their less fortunate members.

8.43 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I hope the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renéort) will not think me too unkind when I say that, having sat through this debate, I have found it immensely interesting and that I enjoyed the speeches until she made hers. With reference to her attacks on my right hon. Friend the Member for the other Wolverhampton seat, surely she knows by now that an Opposition Front Bench spokesman always speaks on his subject, in precisely the same way as a member of the Government speaks on his or her subject from his or her Front Bench.
When it comes to learning something about conditions in Wolverhampton, I only say that the hon. Lady has taken the precaution of living in Hertfordshire while my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has a house in Wolverhampton. [An HON. MEMBER: "Disgraceful."] She does not appear to be in the best possible position to make that criticism. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady showed little willingness to give way. If she makes attacks on hon. Members on this side of the House, she must expect us to hit back and not regard it as disgraceful. If the hon. Lady wants sex equality, she must at least put up with that aspect of it.
On the general topic of the debate, I have learned a great deal, particularly listening to hon. Members opposite who live in some of the constituencies where the problem is very real, I pay a genuine compliment to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) who painted a picture of some of the conditions that exist but are unknown to many of us. He did us all a considerable favour.
I would add only one very personal experience. When I represented another constituency before going to Torquay, where I make no pretence that a great racial problem exists, I helped to guarantee the mortgage of a young couple who came to me for help in buying a house over 20 years for about £ 1,700.


Because of conditions for which they are not responsible, the area in which they live has had a massive immigrant element injected. The last time I heard from them I learned that when the husband, nearing the end of his working life, wanted to sell his house, the highest offer he could get was £ 450 from one immigrant, despite rising property values over the past 15 years.
These are facts which no amount of talking about one's conscience will alter. It is unreal to deny that this sort of thing exists. We all know many more such examples, which are the real causes of the tension which many of us know. I am only too well aware that such racial tensions do not exist in my constituency not because of any high moral character down in South Devon but precisely because such conditions do not impinge day in and day out on those who live in that part of the world.
Personal confessions seems to be in order today, and I admit that my overriding political interest ever since I entered the House—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton): I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point, but why does he believe that because there is an injection of what he called immigrants into an area that of necessity creates racial tension? For his information, in the street in which I live there are coloured people, Chinese, Jews, myself and just about everyone else in creation. Yet we have no racial tension.

Sir F. Bennett: I do not think that that intervention was particularly helpful. I know as well as the hon. Gentleman does that the only reason the Government are reluctantly being driven to introduce the Bill, and the Opposition are reluctantly giving their consent, is that at the present rate of immigration racial tensions are being caused. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman can think of an exception about the street in which he happens to live is irrelevant.
My overriding interest has always been in the concept of maintaining a non-racial—prefer that word to multi-racial—Commonwealth. That is because I believe that the greatest danger we face is no longer ideological wars but racial conflicts, which are not only unfortunately based to a large extent on one colour against another but on the fact that on

the whole it is the white faces that are the rich, the haves, and the others the have-nots. At present, the only forum in the world where there is any measure of sitting down together and trying to ameliorate racial tensions is the Commonweath. I do not count the United Nations here, because whatever else it is it is not united on this matter. If there were no other reasons for keeping the Commonwealth in being this would be ample justification in the second half of the 20th century. Therefore, I have found it all the more difficult to make up my mind about my attitude to the Bill.
I came here to listen and genuinely to try and make up my own mind. I must say that the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) did a great deal to help me to decide where my duty lay on the widest possible consideration. First, while we should obviously have concern for moral obligation, for Commonwealth ideals, for non-racialism and the rest, as M.P.s in a genuine democracy we have a duty as elected representatives not deliberately because of our own particular feelings to create a society contrary to the wishes of the majority of the people who live in this country. It is not our job to over-rule people simply because we may wish to pursue ideals of our own, paying no regard to the sort of society in which the majority of our people wish to live.
I do not think that we should be too paternalistic on this subject if we are genuinely trying to carry out a democratic duty. I have had interesting support on this in the last few days from a large number of immigrants already here. It is wrong to believe that the immigrants already here are opposed to the Bill. I have had a number of letters from immigrants and their view is unanimous that their future chances of absorption into our society lie in the pressures not being built up further than they are now.
If immigrants already here, although they will not say so too publicly, are actually pleading for their difficulties not to be made greater by stepping up the rate of absorption to a point at which they know friction will be cause, the lesson to be drawn is that we must pay serious heed to their view if we claim to have in mind the interests of the present immigrant population.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) advocated a total cessation of immigration. For me, that would be going a great deal too far, but I would say that, if anything, the present rate is too great if we are not to run into the risks of racial conflict such as those which we have seen disfiguring other parts of the world. Do let us remember that, if there is an outbreak of racial pressures and tensions, turning into violence on however limited a scale, even when it is over the scars remain and these help to create further tensions in their turn. Every time there is an outbreak of violence, even if those who cause the trouble are imprisoned, whatever their race, some people think they are unfairly imprisoned for too long and fresh areas of conflict are then created.
So we have an enormous responsibility to do our best to ensure that the safety valve is not invoked at too high a rate and does not build up to undue pressure. Suggestions have been made that the figure of 1,500 which the Home Secretary said might be flexible should be increased—presumably in order to help salve some of our consciences in that it would expand the total Kenya immigration quota.
I have no particular objection to this, but we cannot very easily find a sensible solution and we will not help the problem in East Africa by increasing from 1,500 to 2,500 the number of people allowed in. We cannot seriously imagine that we are making a contribution to removing the antagonism that some people overseas and here feel towards this Measure. We have a very long-standing obligation, which we would find difficult to halt, to allow in a substantial number of Maltese. We have an overwhelming obligation towards Gibraltarians, which is the only part of the Commonwealth ever actually to vote for union with us, and not because of colour. Anyone who has been to Gibraltar knows that there is a very mixed racial composition there.
In New Zealand, Australia and Canada there must remain a degree of reciprocity because they accept so many immigrants from this country. We cannot close the door without betraying an

even greater trust. If we add up all these existing obligations and take the figure which has been mentioned of 4,700 as the total number of work permits issued last year, and say that any increase over Kenyas 1,500 must be taken out of the 4,700, there is not an awful lot left to help us over our difficulties.
It would be dishonest if we did not realise the dangers when we break pledges, as we have done in two instances over the question of citizenship of this country, in successive years. We must appreciate that tonight we may be setting another precedent if we permit this situation in which 1,500 or more are allowed to come in because of an obligation to those people we are now thinking about in East Africa. Are we looking forward to what could happen on a substantial scale in Mauritius? Have we forgotten the racial tensions in Fiji? Have we in mind the problem that can easily break out in Malaysia when we might have to come to the aid of some of their people? What about the leased areas in Hong Kong, many of whose inhabitants are there because they do not wish to live under the Chinese régime? If we are being honest with ourselves we cannot make up our minds about this Bill by saying, "Does it really matter if we have a few more from East Africa?" We are setting a moral precedent in precisely the same way as other moral precedents have been set up—which it is said we are now flagrantly breaking.
What are we doing about the passports of the Kenyans and others? Are these still being issued, and will they be issued in other dependent territories? I cannot help feeling that there is almost a fraudulent element in the light of what we have learned, to continue to issue passports which we know in our hearts will not be honoured when the time comes, except on a quota system, which in the case of some of the larger territories would be meaningless because it would take hundreds of years to fulfil our obligations on the basis of a small annual quota.
This is something that has to be looked at not only in the context of tonight's debate, but in regard to the wider future problems about which I have spoken. For all the reasons which I have mentioned, not only because it is right for our


own people, but for the immigrant society here, because I would loath the idea of this country becoming racialist in its outlook, I shall have no hesitation, without any sense of guilt, in supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: This is a miserable Measure, and certainly I shall not support it. In such circumstances, it is customary to move that it should he introduced again in six months' time. In this case, the Measure should have been laid five years ago, and certainly prior to October, 1964.
The objectionable and unacceptable feature of it is that every hon. Member knows that, if the impending influx of people had been white, the Bill would never have appeared. It is no use hon. Members saying that it is not they who are prejudiced, but the public. On this matter, as on all others, Parliament should give the lead. One of the problems of prejudice in this country is that one can never meet an anti-black: such people always shelter behind their neighbours. If hon. Members are to mirror the lowest common denominator of public prejudice, what is the point of being in this House? If the Labour Party is to mirror the prejudice of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, why should there be a Labour Party? All political parties exist to try and change society for the better.
The only creditable feature about the Bill is the evident shame with which the Government have introduced it, in contrast with the unholy joy with which it has been greeted by the Monday Club. I believe that Britain will become a lesser nation if it is passed.
It is not the situation which has really changed since these people were given a legal pledge by Her Majesty's Government at the time of the independence of Kenya. The only change which has taken place is in the campaign which has been whipped up by certain interested politicians. It is not the people against whom we are discriminating tonight who are the problem in this country. It is the prejudice which has been directed against them for certain motives. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) spoke about the situation being like a run on a bank. One might ask

him who caused the run on the bank. Was it the immigrants, or the people who began the pernicious campaign which has led them to try and come here before the door is closed?
If we were debating yesterday the Cecil King Appeasement Bill, we are debating tonight the Alf Garnett Appeasement Bill. The real authors who have contributed towards it are three hon. Members, and I have given them notice that I intended to refer to them. The first is the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), whose long-sustained campaign against immigrants and their dependants makes it evident that he is unaware that, when families are united, that is the best factor for them forming the most law-abiding sectors of society.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in a very inflammatory speech, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), spoke about a class in a Wolverhampton school which had only one white child. An enterprising national newspaper did some research in every school in that constituency, and the minimum found in any class was five white children. The right hon. Gentleman has declined to name the school that he has in mind.
I come finally to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that he is the real author of the situation which has given rise to the present predicament. I find it unacceptable and intolerable that he now seeks to make political capital out of the situation, just as he did out of the crisis in the South Aden Federation, which was again his own creation.
As I have said, it is not the immigrants who are the problem. The problem is the prejudice which certain people in this country attempt to arouse. Let us not delude ourselves that there is not racial prejudice in all the political parties. However, we must come to recognise that some prices are too high to pay for electoral popularity or even for survival: Pandering to racial prejudice is one of them.
We are here tonight as prosecutor, judge and jury of people who are not present. There is no Asian representative


in this House. What crimes have these people ever committed to justify our inflicting this penalty upon them? It is not they who are racially prejudiced. They owe their situation to the fact that their ancestors put their trust in the words of Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, who sought by his policy to make them come from India and settle in Kenya. Following that, they then trusted his son-in-law at the time of Kenya independence. The only charge that this House can bring against them is the accident of their physical appearance, which is no more relevant and no more their own fault than if they were tall, red-haired and red-faced.
It is on such grounds that Britain is asked tonight to break a solemn legal pledge which is likely to be condemned at the European Court of Human Rights, at the International Court at The Hague, throughout the Commonwealth, and at the United Nations. But some of this criticism will undoubtedly be sanctimonious.
One asks what representations the Commonwealth is making to Australia, whose all-white policy contrasts strongly with their urgent pleas for more immigrants to occupy their thousands of unoccupied acres. They seem to forget their all-white policy only when coloured people with cricketing talent arrive. Canada has also got unoccupied land. I ask the Government to initiate a concerted Commonwealth programme to take immigrants in the emptier parts of the Commonwealth.
I oppose the Bill for the following reasons. First, Clause 1 is barely disguised white preference. Secondly, the appeal system which has been offered as a concession goes nothing like as far as what was recommended by the Wilson Committee and accepted by the previous Home Secretary. If the cost and absence of civil servants is the real objection, why cannot the appeals be brought through the magistrates' courts and the High Court of this country? This would occasion no extra staff. The machinery is ready to go into action tonight.
In the long term we must seek to get away from the idea of a quota concept in dealing with immigrants, who are human beings. How do the Government

arrive at their figure of 1,500? What are the criteria on which they estimated this figure? Or is it completely arbitrary and insubstantiable? Surely the criterion for admission to this country should be the availability of employment. That is the reason why people come. They do not come because of Britain's climate. But, more immediately, the Government should be setting up special reception arrangements for these unhappy people who have been driven by political forces not of their own making to arrive at Gatwick Airport in the middle of a British winter. What arrangements arc being made to receive them?
The total of the Kenyan-Asian to whom we owe a legal obligation is roughly only twice the normal Commonwealth annual intake. That is the size of the problem for which we are breaking our word in this unprecedented fashion tonight. Why are not the Government saying in a louder voice that the numbers of people coming into this country are still much much smaller than the numbers leaving? For this reason, it is not overcrowding which is the problem: it is racial prejudice.
Finally, leprosy in fact is neither an infectious nor an incurable disease; but if the people who should be trying to heal leprosy lie down and simulate the illness, what hope is there of curing it?

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I agree that this debate, as the subject befits, has been one of high quality and the contributions made by hon. Members on both sides have been uniformly sincere, informed and impressive, though in many cases they have differed in their reaction to the Measure that we are discussing.
I want fairly briefly, because I know there were many hon. Members still wishing to speak, to restate the arguments, stated earlier by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), why I intend to vote in favour of this Measure, and I hope my hon. Friends will do the same.
The main problem is that of Asians coming from Kenya. The basic problem, stated quite simply, is that these people have quite undeniably been given


certain rights. Equally, if they all exercise these rights, or seek to do so, at the same time, serious consequences will follow for everyone, including the Asians themselves. I think that these are the two propositions before us.
There is no doubt about the rights which these people possess. When they were given these rights, it was our intention that they should be able to come to this country when they wanted to do so. We knew it at the time. They knew it, and in many cases they have acted and taken decisions on this knowledge. I am certain that there can be no going back on those simple facts.
Equally, there is no doubt about the problem which can, and will, be created if the rate of immigration goes ahead too rapidly, a problem just as serious for the immigrant communities as for the rest of us. I believe that this country has handled the racial problem very well. It may be that succeeding Governments could have done more in many ways, more about the dispersal of some of the more concentrated communities, more about the provision of better facilities, and more about encouraging integration within the existing society. Despite that, our record compares extremely well with the record of almost any country in the world. But even here there is bound to be a flashpoint. Let us make no mistake about that. There is bound to be a flashpoint somewhere, and if the flash occurs everyone will be burned, and probably seriously burned.
I think that in discussing this Measure we must not be in any way hypocritical about the racial nature of the problem that underlies it. This clearly is a racial problem, a problem of potential racial tension which everyone on both sides of the House wishes desperately to avoid. The problem arises quite simply from the arrival in this country of many people of wholly alien cultures, habits and outlook; people incidentally, as well, who tend to concentrate in their own communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said, if they were spread throughout the country the problem would be entirely different, but because they concentrate in certain areas, and because their outlook, their habits and their cultures are so different from ours, they create a very serious potential danger.
Much has been said about Clause 1. It has been argued by several hon. Members that this Clause is racial in intent. I do not think that this is so. I accept the Government's argument that it is based, as the Home Secretary said, on a concept that certain people belong to this country, a concept which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, Lord Butler as he now is introduced some years ago. This is an acceptable and not a racial criterion.
Equally, it can be argued that the action being taken by the Kenya Government is not racial because it is based on citizenship, and because countries are entitled to say that they will treat their own citizens in some respects differently from people who are not citizens. Although I accept these arguments, formally at any rate, I must warn the Government, and I would like to warn the Government in Kenya as well, that this is not what it will appear to many people. Certainly with regard to Clause 1 the fact is that the vast majority of those who will benefit will be people of European extraction. If, as I accept from the Government, their intention is not to have a racial criterion, they must make this crystal clear from the outset.
Turning to what is happening in Kenya, although what they are doing is based on citizenship, the fact is that so many speeches of leading Kenyans refer to Africanisation, and this is really a racial concept. I appeal seriously to the people in Kenya. I think that perhaps I have a certain claim to do so, because I presided over the Conference at Lancaster House, as a result of which Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ngala took over the Government of a self-governing Kenya. I appeal to Mr. Kenyatta, whose record as a leader of his country has been outstanding, to think again about what he is doing to his country in this way. Kenya needs these people, just as much as they need Kenya, and by insisting on pushing them out in the way that is being done, by repriving them of their livelihood, something is being done to the future of Kenya which will benefit no one and may harm many.
The problem of racial antipathy is one of the worst in the modern world, and it is not enough merely to deplore it. We must try to solve it. To condemn racialism is not, and should not be, to ignore


the real social difficulties, or the need both of effort and of time to achieve integration between immigrants and an existing society.
Racial prejudice is a basic human instinct; one cannot legislate it away but can only legislate to ensure that the damage which it does becomes less and less as the years pass. I suppose that it is difficult to trace the origin of racial prejudice. My own belief accords with that of my right hon. and learned Friend, that it is largely based on fear—fear of the unknown, fear of the unusual, fear, sometimes, of domination by a community more clever, more skilled or more active than oneself, fear of lower standards of health or housing being introduced, fear of competition in jobs, above all, fear of the strange and the unknown, which can only be overcome by patience, time and conscious effort.
When we talk of racial tension and problems, we tend sometimes to think too much in terms of conflict between black and white. This is not the whole story, by any means. In many countries, the tension is between black and brown rather than black people and white. The tension between Indian and African in many of our territories and ex-territories, between Arab and African, between Malay and Chinese in the Far East—all these are examples of the tension between racial communities which is the curse of the modern world.
Our job as a Parliament is obviously to pursue the objective of demolishing the barriers to understanding between the races. Time is essential, and in many cases it may be a long time. But, above all, we must preserve our home base of tolerance and acceptance of the multiracial ideal. If we do not maintain it, we cannot be of service to anyone else. There is in some sense an analogy in the economic field. We want more imports from the developing countries so that we can help them with their development, but we cannot help unless our own economy is strong and sound. Equally, I am certain that we can never actively help over these racial problems unless we can maintain our tolerance in this country which, to our credit, we have so far succeeded in maintaining.
Therefore, if the entry of immigrants is too rapid, all will suffer, and it is for

this reason that I certainly accept the principle of the Bill. There is no doubt of our obligations to the people concerned in Kenya. We granted them legal status, which included the right to come here. We did it deliberately, but if all of them were to come at once, all of them would suffer as a result. We accept, unhappily—as I am sure the whole House accepts unhappily—the need for regulation in this case. Therefore, I support the Bill.
However, we have not been happy about the handling of this by the Government. I do not want to embark on controversy, which is not really appropriate to the tone of this important debate, but it is fair to say that this problem has been emerging for some time past. The Home Secretary went out of his way to stress how long it has been developing. Therefore, far more could have been done by negotiation and discussion with other Commonwealth countries to prepare for this Measure. In the absence of preparation, many difficulties will clearly arise in practice, many of which have been raised tonight and not yet answered.
There are the problems of people arriving without vouchers and of what their fate will be, and of people who come not direct from Kenya but through other countries. If they are turned back from here, where do they go? Do they shuttle to and fro indefinitely? Obviously not, but what provision has been made for this?
There is the position of India and Pakistan. Many of these people were originally of Indian and Pakistani origin, although several generations back. What is the position of the Indian and Pakistani Governments if these people want to go back to the countries of their origin? Has this been discussed with these two Governments? Do we know what line they are taking and, if so, would the Under-Secretary give a clear statement of what their attitude will be, since the reports in the newspapers have been rather conflicting on this point?
The most serious point which I want to put to the Under-Secretary is, what happens to those who can no longer work in Kenya but who are not allowed to come here? This is really the most serious problem of all.
As has been pointed out by my hon. Friends, many people did not apply for


Kenya citizenship because they relied on their British rights. They will now find themselves—certainly this is so in many cases—unless some change takes place in the policy of the Kenya Government, in a position in which they cannot work in Kenya and will therefore try to come here, but maybe prohibited from doing so. The Home Secretary was right to say earlier that this is not a question of them being stateless. However, it is a question of them being jobless and, in many ways, homeless and, possibly, without help and protection. The irony of it is that they will have rights under British citizenship which they can exercise in every country except here.
We must, therefore, press the Government hard on this issue of what is the position about Kenya citizenship for these people. Is the door really closed? The Home Secretary seemed to suggest that there was still an opening, but our impression is that the door has been fairly firmly closed after the two-year grace period. We must have a clear statement about the position, about what the Government intend to do to try to persuade the Kenya authorities to liberalise their policy in this matter, and, above all, what they believe to be the proper fate of those who may be denied the right to work in the country in which they live or go to the country to which they belong.
This brings me to the question of the size of the quota. Several of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to this matter. We stated in our statement last week that we accepted, in effect, the need for some regulation. However, we said that at the same time we' recognised that these people have rights and that what should be done was to phase the use of these rights. In other words, they cannot all come at once, but some provision must be made whereby, over a period of time, they can come. However, with a quota as low as 1,500 for heads of families, many of these people will probably never be able to come here. This is very difficult to reconcile with the recognition, which the Government claim, of the ultimate right of British citizenship which these people possess.
Several of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to the question of priorities. Given that there must be some limitation on the number of immigrants, which of

them has the greatest claim on us? I have no doubt that the Asians in Kenya, of whom we are talking, have the greatest claim. It is not entirely a matter of them fitting into our community more easily than people coming from other countries with less education, less skill or less knowledge of our customs. The real reason, it seems, why they have a basic claim on this country is because we made them citizens, gave them these rights and because they are in an exceptional position. This position must be recognised by wherever possible giving them priority over other would-be immigrants. I have the impression, from listening to the speeches made this afternoon, that this argument commands a great deal of support on both sides.
I am glad that the Home Secretary has yielded on the question of an appeal procedure. I believe that a great deal of the damage done by this Measure—and psychological damage has, of course, been done—would have been mitigated if the right hon. Gentleman had, from the very beginning, accepted the need for an appeal procedure. It is somewhat strange, as we know the Home Secretary to be a humane man, that he did not from the very start make the provisions which now, under political pressure, he hay sensibly made. However, whether or not these provisions are adequate is hard to say, and, frankly, I am in some difficulty in understanding precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. I hope, therefore, that when the Minister replies to the debate he will explain this matter clearly.
Apparently there is to be a tribunal which will operate mainly in Kenya hearing appeals. I do not know on what criteria the tribunal will judge them, and nor do I understand how a tribunal operating there can deal with appeals and decisions made by immigration officers operating in this country. I understand that one complaint has been that immigration officers have an extremely difficult task to perform and that while they perform that task well, in view of the complexity of the instructions and the manifold nature of the cases with which they must deal, they cannot always be right. It is sensible to have some form of appeal procedure, but how can the appeal procedure be in Kenya when the immigration officers


are in this country? It is probable that I over-estimated the intentions of the Government on the appeal procedure, and I would be grateful if the Minister would deal with this with some care.
There are other points which arise in the Bill of a rather minor character. Some we very much welcome. The idea of a medical examination is a good one, though we would think, as the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) said earlier, it would be a good idea if the medical examinations were held in the country of origin rather than waiting until arrival in this country.
The 24-hour rule is to be extended to 28 days. Why limit it to 28 days? If people are coming in illegally, why give them a run of 28 days?
There is the question of the new obligations to be put on pilots and masters of ships not to carry people in certain circumstances. How can this be done in practice? I see great difficulties in aircraft captains and masters of ships complying with this new provision. They are subject to severe penalties if they do not comply.
How will the vouchers be allocated? The number of people asking for them in Kenya will be far greater than the number available. It is said this would be done on the basis of personal circumstances and special criteria. This is vague, and it is most important that the Government shall make clear the criteria upon which they will ask officials to proceed. We have a number of other suggestions. It would be a good thing to have some provisions to make financial aid available to immigrants who want to return to their own country. There is a strong case for checking voucher holders and dependants in their own country rather than when they arrive here. There are a number of other points on the detailed control of immigration.
In discussing this serious conscience-searching problem of the Asians in Kenya I believe the Government have both a problem and an opportunity. The tradition of the open door in this country is deep and great. Almost passionate speeches on this theme have been made in the course of this debate but to leave

the door open to the world, to all those potential 1 million who might claim the right to come here, could give rise to racial tensions which would be self-defeating. The Government must exercise control not only with flexibility but with imagination. A great deal of imagination as well as flexibility will be needed if great injustice and harm and suffering are not to be imposed on individuals who can claim the protection of this House.
We feel, reluctantly and unhappily, but nevertheless with conviction, that the principle of imposing some control is right, and for that reason on this side of the House we will support the Second Reading.
We say four things. First of all treat this as a Commonwealth problem and bring into consultation as much as possible all the other Commonwealth countries who can help in achieving a solution. Secondly, recognise that the limitation of 1,500 heads of families is very severe and very difficult to reconcile with the rights of the people concerned. Thirdly, accept that the Asians in Kenya holding British passports have a claim to priority in our consideration over other would-be immigrants. Finally, make the appeals system really effective. If the Government are prepared to do all these things I believe that they will have succeeded in doing the best that can be done in an unhappy and even tragic situation.

9.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): This has been a good debate. From the Press reports over the last few days, one might have imagined that it would be a debate of far greater bitterness and intensity than it has been. Strong feeling has been expressed by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite. I do not believe that anyone in the House could have wished or hoped for the sort of legislation which we have been bound to bring forward. During the debate there has been a consciousness by almost all who have spoken of the acute dilemma faced by the Government, by Parliament and, in fact, by the nation.
The debate has not been on party divisions; thank heavens that it has not. There is no point in seeking to divide for


the sake of division. There has been agreement between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who, I thought, made a most genuine and humane speech. The two opening speeches set the tenor of the debate, and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) maintained it. There are some in the House who, though they are still deeply distressed, are less distressed than they were before coming to the House today because of things said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Very few points have been raised on Clauses 2 to 5. There has been a general recognition that it was necessary to take action to stop illegal entry and to provide penalties for those responsible for this sort of smuggling of human beings. There has been some question whether it is right to make the extension from 24 hours to 28 days, and this is the point which my right hon. Friend would like to consider in Committee. There has been general agreement about medical checks and the need, in the interests of family reunification and of avoiding social problems, that action should be taken to stop the flow of young boys to this country to live in all-male households and to join single parents.
I turn to the main subject of controversy—the decision to extend the Commonwealth immigration control to United Kingdom citizens holding United Kingdom passports but having no substantial connection with this country. I do not wish, any more than the right hon. Member for Barnet, to hide behind the argument that this is a matter of "tidying up an anomaly"—a term used on one occasion by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). He said on another occasion that
It was certainly never intended to provide a privileged back door entry into the United Kingdom.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was nearer the truth when he said in the letter which he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman
We did it. We meant to do it and in any case we had no other alternative".
That was the view taken by the right hon. Member for Barnet.
As has been said, the constitution on which Kenya independence was founded was detailed and exact. Those who did not automatically obtain Kenyan citizenship were given a right to claim a British passport and thus to be exempt from immigration control. It is disingenuous to suggest that those who were involved in the negotiations for Kenya independence did not know the consequences of the decisions which were taken. It is true that they did not imagine that so few would opt for Kenya citizenship. They hoped no doubt that many more would do so. They hoped that this would be an interim measure. But the rights are there, and it would be wrong of us to pretend that we are doing less in this Bill and in Clause 1 than we are doing.
We cannot lightly dismiss the expressions of concern such as came from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) and bodies like the United Kingdom Committee for Human Rights Year, the United Nations Association and the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants. They are responsible bodies. Our reasons for taking this action must be sincere and convincing. The provisions of the Bill and its implementation must be seen to be fair and humane. To depart in any way from the undertaking given is a very serious matter. It is done by this Government—I know that this applies to the Front Bench opposite—with a very heavy heart. In deciding to change these rights, the Government must present powerful and convincing reasons. I believe my right hon. Friend did so.
This country has absorbed roughly 1 million immigrants from many parts of the Commonwealth in the last 10 or 15 years. These new citizens have made a significant contribution to the British way of life, economically and socially. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House have no time for those who decry the contribution made to our country's wealth by citizens of Commonwealth origin. Over the centuries our country has been enriched by the flow of successive waves of immigrants. I believe they will continue to play an increasingly important part in our national life. It is important to see that there are no obstacles put in their way. But for immigrants, from wherever they come, to come to Britain too rapidly in large numbers without any


measure of control creates real problems. Those who live in areas of Commonwealth immigrant concentration are fully aware of those problems.
Many hon. Members have spoken from experience in this debate. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Frederic Harris) have spoken very movingly from their own experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) have spoken from experience of the problems which exist in housing, employment and education. If there are hon. Members who do not know of these problems, the local education authorities do know of them. It is fair to pay tribute to the work of local authorities in trying to tackle the problems which inevitably emerge.
Over the past 15 years immigrants from the West Indies, India, Pakistan and parts of Africa have come to Britain, have taken work and have settled here. They are entitled to see their dependants join them; wives and children should continue to be reunited with fathers here. While it is right that we should take all responsible action to stop illegal entry or evasion and to prevent the social problems resulting from teenage boys coming straight here into all-male households and going on to the labour market, we ought not to give in to the pressures to stop family reunification. Those who repeatedly make demands for the rights of dependants to be slashed do not realise the insecurity and uncertainty they create in the minds of Commonwealth citizens here. They have their human rights. It would be very wrong to tackle the problem of those who come here from East Africa at the expense of those who are living and working here, integrated with us and with the rights they have had by Act of Parliament to be joined by their dependants.

Mr. John Page: Would the hon. Gentleman consider that people coming in future should be given permits on the understanding that they

should not expect to bring their dependants to this country at a later stage?

Mr. Ennals: I would not contemplate that for one moment. In this connection only today I received a letter from a man of Indian origin who came from East Africa some years ago and was a leading figure in a national organisation dedicated to the improvement of race relations. He argued that restriction was necessary but that in order to admit all who want to come to Britain from East Africa we should suspend all other immigration, including dependants of those who are already here. I profoundly disagree with him. But it shows the dilemma in which we are placed and which he faces as one of those who have come here.
On top of the natural flow of dependants has been superimposed the very substantial increase in the flow of families from Kenya. Until a few months ago they were coming in in reasonable numbers—between 6,000 and 7,000 a year. With their skills and knowledge of English, they were assimilated without great difficulty, but the rapid increase of the last few months of 1967 and increasingly in the early weeks of 1968 has created a new situation which the Government had to face. The numbers arriving in January were eight times those that arrived in January last year.
It is easy to understand why there has been this rush from Kenya, and blame, if blame be the word, must be shared. First, I suppose that the British Government, by permitting the retention indefinitely of United Kingdom citizenship for those who did not opt for Kenya citizenship or acquire it automatically, removed the incentive for genuine integration. But there is no point in going back over whether we had to do that or not. The fact was that, since they could look over their shoulders, in many cases they did not become integrated in the life and affairs of the Kenya nation.

Mr. Winnick: Mr. Winnick rose—

Mr. Ennals: I shall not give way at the moment.
Second, it is a matter of regret that not more of those of Asian origin opted for Kenya citizenship and threw in their lot with the Kenyan nation.
Third, it is also to be regretted that the actions of the Kenya Government led to uncertainty and insecurity mounting rapidly almost to panic.
But it cannot be denied that the rush was accelerated by fears that the doors might be closed to them by Britain. Those fears did not come from any statements made by British Ministers but from the widely publicised demands for restriction by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), first in my constituency on 18th October and more recently in my home town of Walsall on 9th February, and by other speeches, including that of the right hon. Member for Streatham. There is no doubt that they must bear some share of the responsibility for the degree of panic we have witnessed. But it would be wrong to say, as some of my hon. Friends have done, that all the blame must be pointed in any one direction. Blame must be shared—

Mr. Sandys: The Minister refers to speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and others on this side of the House. Is it not a fact that the previous Home Secretary, in the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Act last November, announced for the first time the very big increase in the influx of Asians from Kenya, and that it was happening before anybody made any speeches from this side of the House?

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend announced the figures in November, but he did not make any suggestion that the Government would legislate. It was the demands for legislation that made their contribution. The British Government, which had been watching the growing influx over the months, were inevitably faced with a serious and mounting dilemma.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that a reassurance should have been given that rights would never be denied. I fear that had this been done it might have encouraged the Kenya Government in actions which might have stimulated the exodus. In any case, it would have been a grave risk to take, and any such pledge would not only have affected those in East Africa but would have had to cover those in a similar citizenship situation in other parts of the

world, such as my right hon. Friend referred to. Had we decided to do nothing the flow would have continued, and we should have been rightly accused of letting the situation get beyond our control. Faced with an influx that could have reached 100,000—who can know what the figure might have been?—and which because of its speed could have created very serious social problems, the British Government decided regretfully that they must intervene. It was not an easy decision to take and it was reached only after great heart-searching.

Mr. Winnick: Even if one accepts my hon. Friend's argument, is not Clause 1 a form of discrimination in favour of white people which must, by the nature of things, cause a great deal of resentment and bitterness? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in Committee, the Government will look at this Clause again?

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend must be patient. I am going to deal with precisely that point.
It was also suggested that there should have been a longer period of warning as to what might happen. I do not think that this bears examination. Had we said that we might have to legislate in such and such a time, we would have had an even greater rush than that of the last few sad days. I must say to some hon. Members that we could not achieve the phased entry which they say we should have had instead of legislation without denying the automatic right of entry on one hand and granting permission to come at a regulated speed on the other. The only way in which there could be a phased entry was by legislation. There is no other way.
This was not a panic decision. The possibility of legislation had been under consideration for several months, although the Government continued to hope that they would not have to intervene. There were, of course, discussions with all the other countries involved in the Commonwealth. None of these discussions could be made public and it is not for me to speak on behalf of the Indian or Pakistan Governments. They have shown some understanding of the difficult problem we face.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich and my hon. Friends


the Members for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) and Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) have accused us of pursuing a racialist policy. This is quite untrue. I respect the integrity and the sincerity of many of those who have made that charge and it is true that Clause 1 does not apply to the Irish, the Canadians, the New Zealanders and the Australians, but they are already covered by Commonwealth immigration control.
Clause 1 applies only to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies holding United Kingdom passports, and the fact that it tends to exempt from control people of British ancestry is geographical and not racial. Those who were born in this country, or whose fathers or fathers' father were born here, will be exempt whatever their race. It has been argued that, to prove that this is not racialist legislation, we should remove the provision excluding from control those who have a parental link with Britain. Surely it is right that those who, regardless of race, have close links with Britain should not be excluded. To do otherwise would make this legislation more restrictive and it does not make sense to propose it.
Hon. Members should remember that the children of citizens now living here, wherever their parents came from and whatever their colour, will be exempt from control. The new measure of control in fact affects groups of people of British origin who left Britain for parts of Latin America generations ago and who have faces as white as ours. It is not race or colour which count but links with this country.
But the main point is that the Bill is not inspired by motives of racial discrimination and anyone who says that it is knows that this really is not true. We have a heavy responsibility to do everything in our power—and this is a responsibility shared by most hon. and right hon. Members in the House—to promote good race relations in Britain. We are determined, as an article of faith, that all citizens in Britain shall have equality, not only before the law, but in opportunities for education, housing, employment, social security and the rest. We are determined to avoid the situation which

has developed in the United States, where patterns of prejudice and discrimination have created an under-privileged indigenous minority, many of whom react violently against what they conceive to be second-class citizenship.
This must not happen here, and it is part of the responsibility of the Government and the House to see that it does not. Some hon. Gentlemen have under-estimated what has been done to promote racial integration in Britain. This is not the occasion and there is not time to deal with it in detail, but mention should be made of the work of the local education authorities. Many of these authorities find new classes of new arrivals almost every week, many with children who speak no English, and this requires the dedication and commitment of teachers in bringing them up to standard. There have to be many special courses for teachers and special preparation of materials through the Schools Council. Supplementary teachers have to be called in to cope with the problem. The work of various Ministries and local authorities in housing and employment should be given credit.
The recent cuts in public expenditure have not affected any of our work in race relations. There have been no cuts in expenditure on the Race Relations Board. on the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants and among the voluntary liaison committees. Nor has there been any reduction in the grants made to local authorities for the appointment of specially trained people to deal with the problems arising from commonwealth immigration. Under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 £1,409,000 has already been paid by the Home Office in grants to over 50 local authorities. Expenditure in 1968– 69 is likely to be substantially higher.
Furthermore—and this is in support of my argument, which I believe is accepted by almost every Member of the House, that the purpose of our legislation is not racial—there will be the presentation, within a comparatively few weeks of the new Race Relations Bill. The hon. Member for Smethwick said we must rush it forward. If we are to have an Act that is to be effective it must be a sound Act. I can assure my hon. Friend that a tremendous amount of work has


been done in the preparation of the Race Relations Bill, and I hope that many of those who may have been critical of this Measure will back to the full the Bill when it is presented. It will declare racial discrimination to be an offence—it will be an historic step forward on the road to ensuring total equality for all people in Britain, regardless of colour, race or national origin.
It will be welcome in all sections of the House, but it would be folly to pretend that an uncontrolled flow of immigrants, whether from East Africa or any other part of the world, in addition to immigrants coming here by right, would not greatly aggravate community problems in Britain. The process of settlement requires patience, care and planning, and it would be a tragedy if the predicament of those of our citizens in East Africa should somehow or other become involved in the cut and thrust of party debate. Sometimes things have been said that can be thought to be racialist, which have stimulated ill-feeling among large sections pf our population. I want to direct some of my remarks to those who have condemned this Bill on grounds of human rights, especially those who have accused the Government of a racialist policy. With sincerity, I believe that the Government have been right in their decision, whereas those to whom I have referred believe that they have been wrong.
I have myself been involved with many of the organisations now challenging the Government over their present policy. I understand and deeply respect their sincerity, but I have a right to appeal to them. Some may vote against the Government tonight. I hope that they will be few in number. Some may challenge Clauses in Committee tomorrow. But the Bill, amended or otherwise, will go through to the Royal Assent. My plea to them is that they should then call it a day. They should weigh their words with great care. They should consider the effect on community relations in Britain not just of this Measure but of their own words and actions.

Mr. Maudling: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, will he answer some of the questions that I put to him?

Mr. Ennals: Yes, I will. I am just making an appeal which I hope is a fair

one. The right hon. Member for Barnet has asked a number of questions, with some of which I have already dealt. I want to say that we have not only got some wounds in this country which may have to be healed. We have some wounds in Kenya, too. We must sympathise with those who will now have to wait their turn to come to Britain. We must hope that many of those who have had their eyes on Britain will settle down where they are and that the Kenya Government in particular will be generous in issuing certificates for trading and employment. I endorse the plea made by the right hon. Gentleman in that connection. It cannot be in the interests of the Kenya Government to see too dramatic an exodus of their population. But the British. Government must be generous and compassionate, too. There will be far more admitted to Britain than the 1,500 vouchers which have been announced already. Wives and children and aged parents will be able to come—

Mr. Thorpe: Will the hon. Gentleman answer some of the questions which have been put to him?

Mr. Ennals: I want to answer the question about the appeal—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ennals: All hon. Members will welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend that the recommendations of the Wilson Committee, though perhaps not exactly as proposed, will be introduced as soon as possible covering all those controlled by Commonwealth immigration, and his announcement that there will immediately be established in East Africa, based on Kenya but able to operate in other parts of East Africa, a small team of lawyers who will act as an appeal tribunal. This, of course, will cover those wishing to come in with entry certificates, students, and others who want to come to this country. My right hon. Friend has said that he will almost certainly accept the recommendations that it makes to him.
I believe that the Bill is one that no one in this House would willingly have wanted to introduce. However, the Bill


is necessary, and I believe that its provisions will be carried out by the Government with sincerity and humanity. Many points which still have to be considered can be debated in Committee tomorrow.
It is a Measure which will command wide support in the House. It will command support in the country, and it should be seen as part of the whole programme of the Government for good community relations in Britain. I believe that, in that spirit, it will be accepted by the House.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury) rose—

Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Charles Grey (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.

Question,That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly,That the Bill he now read a Second time:—

The House divided:Ayes 372, Noes 62.

Division No. 70]
AYES
[10.0 p.m. 


Abse, Leo
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Foley, Maurice


Albu, Austen
Cary, Sir Robert
Ford, Ben


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Channon, H. P. G.
Forrester, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chapman, Donald
Foster, Sir John


Alldritt, Walter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fowler, Gerry


Allen, Scholefield
Coe, Denis
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.


Anderson, Donald
Coleman, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer


Archer, Peter
Concannon, J. D.
Gibson-Watt, David


Astor, John
Conlan, Bernard
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Ginsburg, David


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cordle, John
Goodhart, Philip


Balniel, Lord
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Batsford, Brian
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gourlay, Harry


Baxter, William
Cronin, John
Cower, Raymond


Beaney, Alan
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Crowder, F. P.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bence, Cyril
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Currie, G. B. H.
Gregory, Arnold


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dalyell, Tarn
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Dance, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Grieve, Percy


Bitten, John
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)


Biggs-Davison, John
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gurden, Harold


Binns, John
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bishop, E. 8.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Blackburn, F.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)


Boardman, H.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Ashford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Body, Richard
Delargy, Hugh
Hannan, William


Booth, Albert
Dell, Edmund
Harper, Joseph


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Boston, Terence
Dobson, Ray
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harvey, sir Arthur Vere


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dolg, Peter
Harvie, Anderson, Miss


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Doughty, Charles
Haseldine, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Hattersley, Roy


Braine, Bernard
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hazell, Bert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eden, Sir John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brooks, Edwin
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hiley, Joseph


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hill, J. E. B.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hilton, W. S.


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ellis, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Emery, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bryan, Paul
English, Michael
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Buchan, Norman
Ennals, David
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Errington, Sir Eric
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Evans, Albert (Islington, 8.W.)
Hoy, James


Burden, F. A.
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Huckfield, Leslie


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Eyre, Reginald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Cant, R. B.
Farr, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Carlisle, Mark
Finch, Harold
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)
Hunter, Adam




Hynd, John
Mitchell, R. c (S'th'pton, Test)
Sharpies, Richard


Iremonger, T. L.
Molloy, William
Shaw Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Monro, Hector
Shinwell, Rt. Hn.E.


Irvine, Bryant Godman(Rye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Shore Peter (Stepney)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
More, Jasper
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton N E)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy(Strechford)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptfword)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)
Mullcy, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silvester, Frederick


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Skeffington, Arthur


Johnson smith, G.(E. Grinstead)
Murray, Albert
Small, William


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Murton, Oscar
Snow, Julian


Jones, Dan(Burnley)
Neal, Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.
Neave, Airey
Stainton, Keith


Jonea, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Oakes, Gordon
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Kenyon, Clifford
Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Kerby, Capt Henry
Onslow, Cranley
Stodart, Anthony.


Kershaw, Anthony
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Stonehouse, John


Kimball, Marcus
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Swingler, Stephen


Kitson, Timothy
Oswald, Thomas
Tapsell, Peter


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Taveme, Dick


Lambton, Viscount
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lancaster, col. C. G.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Lawson, George
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Leadbitter, Ted
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Temple, John M.


Ledger, Ron
Palmer, Arthur
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, w.)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Park, Trevor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Parfcer, John (Dagenham)
Thornton, Ernest


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lonias, Kenneth
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Urwin, T. W.


Longden, Gilbert
Pentland, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Loughlin, Charles
Percival, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, 8.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peyton, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mac Arthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Watkins, David (Concert)


McBride, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


MacDermot, Niall
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Weatherill, Bernard


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Price, William (Rugby)
Webster, David


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Probert, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Maclennan, Robert
Pym, Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
White, Mrs. Eirene


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)
Randall, Harry
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. Willflam


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Whitlock, William


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rees, Merlyn
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, j.p.w.(Huddersfleld.E.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, w.)


Manuel, Archie
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mapp, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Marks, Kenneth
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Willis, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maude, Angus
Robson Brown, Sir William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mawby, Ray
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woof. Robert


Maxwell, Robert
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Worsley Marcus


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mayhew, Christopher
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wylie, N. R.


Mellish. Rt. Hn. Robert
Royle, Anthony
Yates, Victor


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Younger, Hn. George


Miscampbell, Norman
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.



Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOB THE AYES:




Mr. John McCann and




Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Bessell, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jackson. Peter M (High Peak)


Black, Sir Cyril
Glover, Sir Douglas
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp; St. P'cras,S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Johnston, Russell(inverness)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Grimond, Fit. Hn. J.
Kelley, Richard


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hamling, William
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Heffer, Eric S.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Dickens, James
Henig, Stanley
Lee John (Reading)


Dunn, James A.
Heseltine, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Higgins, Terence L.
Lubbock, Eric


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Hobden. Dennis (Brington, K'town)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Fisher, Nigel
Hooley Frank
Mackenzie Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mackintosh, John P.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Maclead, Rt. Hn. Iain


Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)







Marten, Neil
Orme, Stanley
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Paget, R. T.
Whitaker, Ben


Mikardo, Ian
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Winnick, David


Miller, Dr. M. S.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Winstamcy, Dr. M. P.


Newens, Stan
Scott, Nicholas



Norwood, Christopher
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nott, John
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. David Steel and


Orbach, Maurice
Wainwright, Richard (Come Valley)
Mr. John Purdue.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McCann.]

Committee Tomorrow.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS
[MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend sections 1 and 2 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, and Schedule 1 to that Act, and to make further provision as to Commonwealth citizens landing in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section 19 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Rural District of Skipton, [copy laid before the House 13th February),approved[Mr. Ennals.]

Orders of the Day — LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Ross.]

Orders of the Day — BOTSWANA (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY AND SILVER INKSTAND)

Mr. Michael Hamilton to have leave of absence, in place of Sir John Eden, to present, with the other Members appointed on 25th January, a Parliamentary Library and Silver Inkstand to the National Assembly of Botswana.—[Mr. McCann.]

Orders of the Day — TELEVISION TRIALS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now djourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: When I applied for the subject of this Adjournment debate, which is about the danger of television trials, it was then regarded as being something of a topical subject. But such are the vagaries of the Ballot that it has taken some time before I could bring the matter to the attention of the House. However, that is not a bad thing, because the issue can now be discussed in an atmosphere divorced from the programme which originally gave cause for wide public apprehension about the matter.
I hope that we shall hear some assurance from the Postmaster-General that the television authorities, both the B.B.C. and I.T.A., have considered this problem and are about to deal with the matter. The problem to which I allude is the one in which a television programme seeks to decide whether a man is guilty of some alleged criminal offence or some alleged breach of his professional code of etiquette. In normal circumstances, such allegations are best dealt with either by the courts of law in the case of the former or by the appropriate professional disciplinary committee in respect of the latter. I do not believe that they are appropriate subjects for a programme which is designed for entertainment.
I have in mind, in raising this debate, a series of programmes—there were two—relating to the case of Dr. John Petro which appeared in the "Frost Programme". These gave me real cause for concern, although this was by no means the only programme. In the same week there was another programme relating to Dr. Savundra, to which I shall not refer because that issue is still sub judice. There were others, too.
I take as my main example the Frost Programme on Dr. Petro, because that seems to be an excellent illustration of the dangers to which I wish to draw attention. I have no desire in this debate to criticise David Frost. I know that it is fashionable in some political quarters

to do so, but it seems to me that he is a man who is utterly competent in his profession, has contributed a great deal to the development of television within his sphere, and is providing entertainment for the public which they like and appreciate. I do not believe he is an oracle of truth. I am sure that in due course he will suffer the fate of others and find himself debating serious questions like Vietnam on "Any Questions" with Lady Barnett. Although that may be his fate, at the moment there is no doubt that he has influence in the country by reason of his television personality. He seeks to entertain, and it is that to which I object most—he seeks to entertain by conducting what is in effect a trial of an issue about which the public feels apprehensive. Since his object is to entertain he cannot be considerate of the rights of the alleged accused in the same way as courts of law or a disciplinary committee would be.
Take the case of Dr. Petro. This gentleman was accused in the Press of over-prescribing drugs. I think there is a real distinction between the case of the newspaper which is conducting a general investigation of an allegation and this sort of television confrontation in which the person is asked questions about his conduct. There is an immediacy about television which gives it an aura of a courtroom confrontation. If to that is added an invited audience who are expected to pass a judgment upon the programme by saying whether they accept or reject the accusations made against the particular person, one has all the atmosphere of a courtroom. Unfortunately it is an atmosphere which is much more akin to a lynch mob in the wild west.
Here is an audience where feelings have been generated by public means about the subject and there are no checks such as would be found in a court of law. If these programmes are to go on, I would ask that a code of conduct should be established by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. for the programme planners and the producers which will ensure that fairness is achieved, and seen to be achieved, in the production of the programme.
It is essential that a man should know what is going to be alleged against him before he is invited to attend a programme. He should know it not only in


general terms but, if a general allegation which is akin to a criminal offence or a breach of his professional code is to be made, he should know it in detail. He should know also who is going to be invited not only as a participant in the discussion on the floor of the programme but in the audience. It was clear from the Petro programmes that some people with special knowledge of the case were invited into the audience, and they were called upon to give their experience in the same way as a witness would in the courtroom.
Thirdly, he should have an opportunity before the programme of consulting his records and notes and any other means at his disposal, and of seeing people who may refresh his memory in order that he can be prepared to answer the allegations made against him. Fourthly, he should have the opportunity, if he so desires, to see that other people are in the audience, if an audience is to be present, to counterbalance those who have been called by the television commentator to give their side of the case so that he can present his side. This would give an appearance that justice was being seen to be done and would be according to the rules of natural justice. Unlike a newspaper campaign, a television campaign with mass coverage throughout the country can do more to damage a man's reputation and a man's career than a conviction in a criminal court, because it is seen by so many people and they are able to pass a judgment which in the atmosphere generated in some programmes which have taken place would almost inevitably be adverse.
Take Dr. Petro. It is true that he has been charged and convicted before a criminal court of failing to keep a record of his prescriptions. But that was not the allegation which David Frost made against him, which was that he was over-prescribing drugs. He is still practising as a doctor, but it is inconceivable that he would be able to acquire a reasonable practice as a general practitioner after the way in which he was treated in that programme. It may be fair that that will be so. Perhaps he deserves all that he has got. But I should feel much more easy in my mind if he had had all the benefits of the safeguards and provision for representation and the calling of

witnesses which would have been afforded to him if he had been charged before the disciplinary body of the G.M.C. I should much prefer that this was the way in which matters were dealt with. If that cannot be, I hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to assure us that a code is about to be prepared.

10.26 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): We are all very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) for raising this important subject. It draws attention to the interviewing of an individual on television against whom criminal proceedings have been or could conceivably be preferred. My hon. Friend added the case of an alleged breach of professional conduct into which an investigation by a professional body may be pending. As my hon. Friend said, the interview may be before a selected audience which is then invited to pass judgment on the individual's behaviour or actions.
In his speech, my hon. Friend referred to one case in particular—the interview of Dr. Petro by Mr. Frost on 10th and 11th January on I.T.V. The programmes were produced by Associated Rediffusion. After the second programme, Dr. Petro was, I understand, arrested by the police as he left the studio. Since then he has been tried and found guilty of failing to enter particulars in the appropriate register of drugs obtained and supplied by him.
The case itself, the fact that Dr. Petro was arrested on leaving the studio, and the fact that the television programme in question took place not long before Dr. Petro was put on trial, attracted a great deal of attention. The circumstances were dramatic. The subject matter and method of the television interviews have given rise to much public disquiet. An audience of millions saw the programmes, and it is more than likely that the 12 persons who were to form the jury at the trial saw the programme.
Dr. Petro thus became very widely known as a person who supplied drugs and who had been in a sense called to account for his behaviour and actions in so doing. Let me say at once that Dr. Petro was, of course, under no obligation to appear on television. The fact


that he did so was entirely a matter of his own free choice.
My hon. Friend referred also to an edition of the "24 Hours" programme which included an interview of Dr. Savundra. Dr. Savundra is still on trial, and I do not think it would be proper for me to say more either about the interview or about the comments made in court later about the interview.
So much for the main facts of the cases to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. Now let me set them into the constitutional context in which broadcasting is conducted in this country. As hon. Members will know, in matters of programme content and in the day-to-day conduct of their affairs, the two broadcasting authorities—the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.—are independent of Government. This is a fundamental principle, and as the last independent Committee of Inquiry, the Pilkington Committee, observed, to break it in a particular case, no matter how trifling, would be to threaten the whole basis of British broadcasting. It is upon the Chairman and the Governors of the B.B.C. and the Chairman and members of the I.T.A., therefore, that full responsibility lies for everything that is broadcast in their services. It is in them that full authority to control their services is vested. Everything that is said or shown on their services is said and shown on their ultimate authority. They are answerable to the public and to Parliament and the Government do not intervene in the content of their programmes.
I do not think I need to defend this constitutional principle. Intervention by Government, no matter how justified it might seem to be in this or that case, could and probably would insensibly become intervention for Government. The notion that the broadcasting media with all their capacity to influence and persuade should become in the least degree the instruments of Government is one that has been rejected absolutely in this country ever since the inception of broadcasting. Yet though the principle is unquestionable, it must be recognised that in the kind of case to which my hon. Friend has referred many of us see a development which offends against the basic principles of British justice evolved over the centuries. These have, I think, a general and a particular aspect. The

general one is that the citizen is answerable under the criminal law to courts of justice which are circumscribed' by carefully enunciated procedures to ensure fair play. Even the procedure of disciplinary tribunals of private organisations has to observe certain principles. There is a real danger if people are exposed on television to programmes which are in the nature of a trial but which provide no such safeguards.
The particular aspect to which my hon. Friend has referred is the doubt whether a man who is to stand trial can confidently be said to get a fair hearing if he has already been "tried", so to speak, on television, and where a kind of verdict is passed explicitly or implicitly by an audience or an interviewer when the jury and court will almost certainly have seen the programme. Where such a television programme might put justice at risk, I agree that something must be done to restrain the broadcasting authority, but if the Government do not intervene, how can the broadcasting authority be restrained?
It is, I believe, from considerations of this kind that my hon. Friend suggested in a Question he put to me recently that legislation should be introduced. He did not ask me to use my reserve power to veto programmes of the kind in question. Rather he suggested that statutory safeguards should be provided. Tonight he has proposed that safeguards should be imposed from without on the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to do so.
I will say why I believe this. As I have said, for constitutional reasons the Government do not intervene in the content of programmes. I do not tell the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. not to broadcast this or that programme, or this or that class of programme. But it certainly does not follow that when hon. Members complain about or criticise programmes—whether by asking me to veto programmes or by proposing the introduction of legislation—no notice is taken by the two broadcasting authorities, and that they go on their way unrestrained and unheeding. I know that Lord Hill and the Governors of the B.B.C. and Lord Aylestone and the Members of the I.T.A. pay the closest attention to the complaints and criticisms of their services which are voiced in Parliament.
These complaints and criticisms are part of the continuing pressure of public opinion in all its variety on the performance of both the B.B.C. and I.T.A. The two broadcasting authorities would be failing in their duty if they did not heed the kind of criticism which has been made tonight by my hon. Friend. When the criticism and the complaints show that something in the broadcasting services really runs counter to the general interest, their duty is not only to listen and consider but to take the necessary measures. There is nothing that so much makes for an active sense of responsibility in a person or organisation as being told that this is where the buck stops.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Since Dr. Petro's activities were also widely noticed in the Press, and since the Press operates under different restraints from those which the right hon. Gentleman is outlining in the case of the television authorities, does he not concede that there might be a case for bringing in a statutory limitation on the actions of the television authorities such as those under which the Press operates?

Mr. Short: The whole point I am making is that I do not think so. By assuming some kind of supervisory rôle and initiating our own rules for detailed control we would diminish the broadcasting authorities' responsibilities to the public and the House.
My hon. Friend will be glad to know that both Lord Hill and Lord Aylestone have told me that they were acutely concerned at the possibility that programmes of the kind to which he has drawn attention might become, in effect, a form of trial and that justice might suffer. I know that they are determined to see that this is not allowed to happen. I am sure that some kind of voluntary code of conduct, though not of the kind my hon. Friend suggested, will emerge from the discussions I have had with them.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. In doing so, he has

again brought it to the attention of the Chairman and Governors of the B.B.C. and the Chairman and Members of the I.T.A. We can leave the matter to them as the people who have been appointed by Parliament as trustees for the national interest in broadcasting.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: We all accept what the Postmaster-General has said about the Government's not interfering with television programmes. I am very sorry to have missed what the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said, but I know that what he is worried about is also what many other people are worried about.
I wonder if we could come a little nearer to satisfying the public through the office of the Postmaster-General or in other ways. What I have in mind is that where there is a prima facie case of injustice, bias or offence to public taste, if the Postmaster-General asked for an explanation or report on the programme from the television authorities this would be a very considerable thing to do. He would no doubt get the report and the public would read it. Would not this in itself satisfy the public's worries and probably also be quite helpful to the authorities?

Mr. Edward Short: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman came in after the debate was a third of the way through—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The right hon. Gentleman must have leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Short: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will reply to the hon. Gentleman. The best safeguard is the assurance I have obtained from Lord Hill and Lord Aylestone that they will see to it that this does not happen again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.